3 ms·

What passivity ignores is non voters get screwed over by politicians. In California in 2022 voting by age breaks down: 29% or 900,000 18-24 year olds 43

by Retric 2y ago

What passivity ignores is non voters get screwed over by politicians. In California in 2022 voting by age breaks down: 29% or 900,000 18-24 year olds 43% or 1,970,000 25-34 year olds 51% or 2,132,000 35-44 year olds 56% or 4,343,000 45-54 year olds 66% or 3,699,000 65+ year olds So it’s obvious what kinds of things to focus on. Other states get even more extreme only 14% of 18-24 year olds voted in WV. https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individuals-who-voted-in-thousands-and-individuals-who-voted-as-a-share-of-the-voter-population-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/number-of-individu... Slice up the population is a few ways and there’s many categories best ignored.

thefaux 2y ago
This is very interesting data. I believe that it is generally considered common knowledge that it's very difficult to increase youth turnout so most campaigns don't even really try. But given how entrenched polarization is, increasing youth turnout in a few key states could be enough to sway the election. Of course decreasing retiree turnout is another (not mutually exclusive) approach. The nice thing about trying to increase turnout though is that it is a positive and inclusive approach rather than a negative and exclusive approach (though the implementation could still be negative: come out and vote for our guy to get rid of that other guy we don't like).
oceanplexian 2y ago
I don’t really see a problem with that. People get wiser as they get older and more mature. This has been proven by insurance companies, who charge higher rates for younger drivers since they’re more likely to be reckless and get into an accident. Not the kind of person you would want to encourage to vote, unless you have ulterior motives to manipulate impressionable young people.
- Retric 2y ago
  It’s easy to make the opposite argument around declining mental facilities and less education for the oldest Americans who are the most likely to vote yet have increased insurance costs despite driving less. Whites also vote more than Hispanics, are suggesting ignoring their issues is a good thing as well? In the end, having out groups is inherently a bad thing no matter who makes them up.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bravetraveler 2y ago
  I can ramble a little about it, I don't know how much water it'll hold. First, as an adult who is otherwise held to certain responsibilities, we've already decided "they are the kind of person we want to vote..." unless they're a felon or something. The social contract says the people/law abiding adult citizens aren't to be subjugated. They get to defend themselves and vote. Not some of them. All. With well-meaning attitudes like yours - applying insurance risk/pooling to rights - we manage to treat criminals too poorly. That's not hyperbole. The wider practice is so disgusting I'm announcing my choice to move on before I allow this to degrade. Second, it's a numbers game. There's safety in the padding they provide simply by taking power away from zealots. There are more than two potential outcomes - good/bad. Shades. Finally, how is one to learn if not by participation?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

by Retric 2y ago

thefaux 2y ago

This is very interesting data. I believe that it is generally considered common knowledge that it's very difficult to increase youth turnout so most campaigns don't even really try. But given how entrenched polarization is, increasing youth turnout in a few key states could be enough to sway the election. Of course decreasing retiree turnout is another (not mutually exclusive) approach. The nice thing about trying to increase turnout though is that it is a positive and inclusive approach rather than a negative and exclusive approach (though the implementation could still be negative: come out and vote for our guy to get rid of that other guy we don't like).

oceanplexian 2y ago

I don’t really see a problem with that. People get wiser as they get older and more mature. This has been proven by insurance companies, who charge higher rates for younger drivers since they’re more likely to be reckless and get into an accident. Not the kind of person you would want to encourage to vote, unless you have ulterior motives to manipulate impressionable young people.

Retric 2y ago
It’s easy to make the opposite argument around declining mental facilities and less education for the oldest Americans who are the most likely to vote yet have increased insurance costs despite driving less. Whites also vote more than Hispanics, are suggesting ignoring their issues is a good thing as well? In the end, having out groups is inherently a bad thing no matter who makes them up.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bravetraveler 2y ago
I can ramble a little about it, I don't know how much water it'll hold. First, as an adult who is otherwise held to certain responsibilities, we've already decided "they are the kind of person we want to vote..." unless they're a felon or something. The social contract says the people/law abiding adult citizens aren't to be subjugated. They get to defend themselves and vote. Not some of them. All. With well-meaning attitudes like yours - applying insurance risk/pooling to rights - we manage to treat criminals too poorly. That's not hyperbole. The wider practice is so disgusting I'm announcing my choice to move on before I allow this to degrade. Second, it's a numbers game. There's safety in the padding they provide simply by taking power away from zealots. There are more than two potential outcomes - good/bad. Shades. Finally, how is one to learn if not by participation?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]