18 ms·

It's not about the scope of the power of the elected official, it's that the effect of a presidential vote may as well be zero—it's about the power of the vote.

by bamfly 3y ago

It's not about the scope of the power of the elected official, it's that the effect of a presidential vote may as well be zero—it's about the power of the vote. A vote for, say, school board may also have near-zero power, but is nonetheless thousands of times greater. A vote in a presidential primary is also far more likely to have any effect whatsoever, than a vote in the general, both because it's smaller and because decisions there determine the entire course of the rest of the campaign, and of the general election. I care plenty about reproductive rights, FWIW, if that's what you're getting at. It's nonetheless the case that a person who votes (only) in one local or state election every four years is doing their civic duty better than someone who votes (only) in every presidential election—but voter participation patterns treat the presidential vote like it's the very most important one to get to. Most people stay home for some elections, and from a how-best-to-spend-my-limited-time-and-effort perspective, most of them are getting it wrong (unless you factor in other things, like how much social pressure there is to go to vote for president vs. how much there is to get to the polls for other elections).

voltaireodactyl 3y ago
You present voting in federal/local elections as one or the other — why not seek to participate in both as an informed citizen? I’m confused why one seems to preclude the other in your statement.
- bamfly 3y ago
  A whole lot of people in-fact only turn out for the "big" votes, is the problem.
  - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
    I get that, but a solution to that problem — on my mind — doesn’t involve people voting less regularly in Federal elections, but rather getting folks to vote more regularly in local elections. Separating the two seems arbitrary — federal elections have more money behind them than local, so awareness is greater. That’s a solvable problem, and one we’ve seen tremendous gains on in the last 15 years. Which is to say, I think the “pay less attention” advice, while popular and relaxing a decade ago for certain demographics, inexorably led us to a place where vast segments of the populace haven’t been paying attention, and assumed “both sides are the same”, and now we’re in a real pickle, Federal policy-wise.
    - bamfly 3y ago
      > I get that, but a solution to that problem — on my mind — doesn’t involve people voting less regularly in Federal elections, but rather getting folks to vote more regularly in local elections. Separating the two seems arbitrary — federal elections have more money behind them than local, so awareness is greater. That’s a solvable problem, and one we’ve seen tremendous gains on in the last 15 years. I'm not saying "avoid voting in some elections", I'm saying the voters who only turn out for the big ones probably have some wrong ideas about where their time and attention is most-effectively spent, and which bubbles they fill out on the ballot or taps they make on the screen are most important. How many can tell you one thing about any state judge, say, (for states that elect judges) on that presidential ballot, but can rattle off all kinds of crap about both major presidential candidates? Priorities are skewed the wrong way. It's just an observation about how voter attention tends to be focused on the wrong things. That top-line vote every four years matters more for getting people out for the down-ballot, than it does per se. > inexorably led us to a place where vast segments of the populace haven’t been paying attention, and assumed “both sides are the same”, and now we’re in a real pickle, Federal policy-wise. I don't think paying less attention to the news gets us there. Plenty of folks I know who hold that (deeply silly) "both sides" opinion pay a lot more attention to the news than I ever have, certainly. Again, I think we'd be better-served, and have a better electorate, if those folks mostly stopped watching the news and started reading more books. However, I admit that this is impractical to apply broadly, as a huge proportion of US adults can't profitably read even slightly-complex non-fiction texts and get much out of them—but for an individual not in that cohort of barely-readers, it might be a good change to make, if one of their reasons for following the news so much is to "be a better voter & citizen". More books, less news (very little, infrequently, possibly except local news).
pharrington 3y ago
If I'm understanding you, you are saying that who becomes the president does actually matter alot. Every four years, the presidential election is on the same ballot as all the other local elections. You are advocating for voting, and you're not advocating for leaving the presidential vote blank on the ballot. If you're frustrated with having little power to make very important decisions, that is more than understandable. However, you can only consider the effect of a presidential vote to be zero if you also consider the derivative in calculus to be zero. In terms of the presidential eletion, we aren't voting as individuals, we're voting as a state. Your vote matters.
- bamfly 3y ago
  > Every four years, the presidential election is on the same ballot as all the other local elections. Yes—but a lot of people skip most or all other votes, including some more-local ones that usually aren't part of that vote. I'm saying placing so much importance on voting for president is misguided. > However, you can only consider the effect of a presidential vote to be zero if you also consider the derivative in calculus to be zero. In terms of the presidential eletion, we aren't voting as individuals, we're voting as a state. Your vote matters. I'm... gonna stop addressing this point in public here, for reasons unrelated to what's correct. It's one of those topics probably better avoided outside small circles due to what amount to, I suppose, marketing reasons, if you will. Probably shouldn't have brought it up. Let it be known that I never claimed it's bad to vote in a presidential election. Everyone should definitely go vote any time they can, especially those in a forum where they're statistically more likely than average to vote the way I would. Every vote is extremely important.

by bamfly 3y ago

voltaireodactyl 3y ago

You present voting in federal/local elections as one or the other — why not seek to participate in both as an informed citizen? I’m confused why one seems to preclude the other in your statement.

bamfly 3y ago
A whole lot of people in-fact only turn out for the "big" votes, is the problem.
- voltaireodactyl 3y ago
  I get that, but a solution to that problem — on my mind — doesn’t involve people voting less regularly in Federal elections, but rather getting folks to vote more regularly in local elections. Separating the two seems arbitrary — federal elections have more money behind them than local, so awareness is greater. That’s a solvable problem, and one we’ve seen tremendous gains on in the last 15 years. Which is to say, I think the “pay less attention” advice, while popular and relaxing a decade ago for certain demographics, inexorably led us to a place where vast segments of the populace haven’t been paying attention, and assumed “both sides are the same”, and now we’re in a real pickle, Federal policy-wise.
  - bamfly 3y ago
    > I get that, but a solution to that problem — on my mind — doesn’t involve people voting less regularly in Federal elections, but rather getting folks to vote more regularly in local elections. Separating the two seems arbitrary — federal elections have more money behind them than local, so awareness is greater. That’s a solvable problem, and one we’ve seen tremendous gains on in the last 15 years. I'm not saying "avoid voting in some elections", I'm saying the voters who only turn out for the big ones probably have some wrong ideas about where their time and attention is most-effectively spent, and which bubbles they fill out on the ballot or taps they make on the screen are most important. How many can tell you one thing about any state judge, say, (for states that elect judges) on that presidential ballot, but can rattle off all kinds of crap about both major presidential candidates? Priorities are skewed the wrong way. It's just an observation about how voter attention tends to be focused on the wrong things. That top-line vote every four years matters more for getting people out for the down-ballot, than it does per se. > inexorably led us to a place where vast segments of the populace haven’t been paying attention, and assumed “both sides are the same”, and now we’re in a real pickle, Federal policy-wise. I don't think paying less attention to the news gets us there. Plenty of folks I know who hold that (deeply silly) "both sides" opinion pay a lot more attention to the news than I ever have, certainly. Again, I think we'd be better-served, and have a better electorate, if those folks mostly stopped watching the news and started reading more books. However, I admit that this is impractical to apply broadly, as a huge proportion of US adults can't profitably read even slightly-complex non-fiction texts and get much out of them—but for an individual not in that cohort of barely-readers, it might be a good change to make, if one of their reasons for following the news so much is to "be a better voter & citizen". More books, less news (very little, infrequently, possibly except local news).

pharrington 3y ago

If I'm understanding you, you are saying that who becomes the president does actually matter alot. Every four years, the presidential election is on the same ballot as all the other local elections. You are advocating for voting, and you're not advocating for leaving the presidential vote blank on the ballot. If you're frustrated with having little power to make very important decisions, that is more than understandable. However, you can only consider the effect of a presidential vote to be zero if you also consider the derivative in calculus to be zero. In terms of the presidential eletion, we aren't voting as individuals, we're voting as a state. Your vote matters.

bamfly 3y ago
> Every four years, the presidential election is on the same ballot as all the other local elections. Yes—but a lot of people skip most or all other votes, including some more-local ones that usually aren't part of that vote. I'm saying placing so much importance on voting for president is misguided. > However, you can only consider the effect of a presidential vote to be zero if you also consider the derivative in calculus to be zero. In terms of the presidential eletion, we aren't voting as individuals, we're voting as a state. Your vote matters. I'm... gonna stop addressing this point in public here, for reasons unrelated to what's correct. It's one of those topics probably better avoided outside small circles due to what amount to, I suppose, marketing reasons, if you will. Probably shouldn't have brought it up. Let it be known that I never claimed it's bad to vote in a presidential election. Everyone should definitely go vote any time they can, especially those in a forum where they're statistically more likely than average to vote the way I would. Every vote is extremely important.