16 ms·

A whole lot of people in-fact only turn out for the "big" votes, is the problem.

by bamfly 3y ago

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).

A whole lot of people in-fact only turn out for the "big" votes, is the problem.

by bamfly 3y ago

A whole lot of people in-fact only turn out for the "big" votes, is the problem.

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).