5 ms·

There is really any mystery as to why half the voters don't vote? Unless you live in one of the half dozen "swing states", your vote is just a symbolic gesture

There is really any mystery as to why half the voters don't vote? Unless you live in one of the half dozen "swing states", your vote is just a symbolic gesture with little chance of impacting the overall outcome.

JellyBeanThief 2y ago
All that means is that we don't have a one-person one-vote system. Some people's votes matter more than others. What we have is a case of civil inequality. If we build a system where everyone's votes count the same (radical and extreme idea, I know), then each person will have the same fundamental incentive to vote.
- Zigurd 2y ago
  Direct election of the US president would be an improvement. Expanding the House of Representatives as originally formulated, or similarly, would help. Making the Senate reflect the population better by dividing populous states, and/or a statehood option for Puerto Rico and DC would help. Striking down gerrymanders would help. More contested down-ballot races would help. No excuse for the parties to not have strong organization and candidate recruitment at that level. No changes to laws needed for this.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  Well, it's a federation of states so you can't quite do that unless you abandon that conceit.
  - kibwen 2y ago
    No, devolving powers to the states is what makes it a federation. Having a state-representative legislative chamber makes it a federation. Electing a federal president via popular vote does not indicate defederation any more than the existence of the House of Representatives does.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Electing a president via popular vote would give populous states disproportionate influence over the country compared to other states. That is important because the president could do obnoxious things against the best interest of any particular state, especially ones with less influence. The stuff happening to your home state is way more relevant to your life than your political party or special interests.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Arbitrary lines on maps are arbitrary. North & South Dakota are far more similar than north and south California.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        The lines on maps are not arbitrary. People decided them by choice and in some cases by force. You might feel no particular attachment to your state, but if another state decided that your state should be exploited in some way, your primary source of support would be your neighbors within those so-called arbitrary lines.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        I used North and South Dakota for a reason. The only reason they were split was to hijack the Senate.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        That is misleading. There was no state of Dakota. The two became states at the same time. Even Wikipedia says this: >Regionalist tensions between the northern and the southern parts of the territory were present since the beginning. So, the split was not likely about senate seats. It was about people getting along within each state.
      - Zigurd 2y ago
- zarathustreal 2y ago
  > we don’t have a one-person one-vote system. Correct, and that’s a good thing! Intelligence is not evenly distributed among individuals, and susceptibility to psyops and propaganda is a huge issue. The plain truth of the matter is that a majority of people simply aren’t qualified to weigh in on national issues. True democracy works when you’ve got a small group of like-minded individuals of roughly equal stature (13 original colonies) but not when you’ve got an entire empire (Roman republic)
kej 2y ago
There is more on your ballot than the president, you know.
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  Unless you happen to live in a swing area, the results for most other races conform to well known and even pre-determined trends. There are very few such areas. Voters, candidates and the political parties know this.
gsk22 2y ago
The presidency is not the only election on the ballot. And if you ask people who don't vote why not, very few of them are going to mention the electoral college. I would wager most people who don't vote couldn't even explain what the electoral college is.
- blacksmith_tb 2y ago
  Probably they couldn't explain it, but many of them will have taken to heart the idea that "my vote doesn't matter". Which is especially sad, since like you say there are potentially all kinds of local and regional races and ballot measures their vote could in fact have impacted.
- atmavatar 2y ago
  In many districts, your vote for US House and Senate seats largely doesn't matter, either. For many people, those are the only elections they are thinking about when it comes to November. Senate seats are elected state-wide, so they largely go the same way as the presidential vote. If you're in a deep-red or deep-blue state (i.e., nearly all of them), your individual vote isn't going to make a difference. House seats are district-specific, but: a) the re-election rate of incumbents is over 90% b) districts are often drawn to lock-in control for a specific party State senate and house seats are often no better. However, much to the credit of the sibling response, there are all kinds of local and regional races as well as ballot initiatives that are important.
  - gsk22 2y ago
    Setting aside gerrymandering (which is a huge issue), the reelection rate doesn't tell the whole story. By what margin are House candidates typically winning? I'm sure there are plenty of landslides, but also lots of districts that were decided by a few percent -- and those who don't vote could be a deciding factor in those races if they chose to vote. Or if we analyze this from an opportunity cost perspective, IMO voting is always the right choice. Maybe there's an 80% chance your vote "doesn't matter", but the cost is only 15 minutes of your time every 2 years. Isn't the 20% worth the risk? (OK, I am lucky enough to live in a state where voting lines are short. I understand it takes more than 15 mins for some people.)
alecco 2y ago
It's interesting how Occupy Wall Street was ridiculed by the press. I think they were onto something even though I don't agree with almost everything else they also believed in.
throwaway14356 2y ago
The problem is brainwashing. The formula is this: YOU learn all by yourself what all electable candidates say they want to do. YOU figure out all by yourself which ones LIE. One lie is enough, if they do it they keep doing it. And then YOU chose which election program you want to vote for. Ideally you chose what is best for the country but this is rather challenging for people. We can forgive them for being stuck thinking only of themselves. Why would it be perfectly obvious if one is ordering food but not for elections??? Food might taste bad and you might get food poisoning. A bad choice doesn't mean years of suffering. Does one not look at the menu card? Or do you ask your mum what to order? Do you roam around the restaurant looking what other people are eating? Do you order what CNN is screaming at you? If people scream at you from all directions that you should order the snails in garlic butter, does that mean you will never have to look at the menu the rest of your life? You can just eat snails every day, everyone else is eating snails every day???? Why are you not eating snails?? It is the nr 1 most sold food! Don't you want snails to be the nr 1 food? Then the restaurant switches to the cheapest worse possible snails because people will order it anyway because other people will order it. Is this a display of good taste? I hate apple but I buy iphone because they are good enough for what I need. I might get an android phone some day. They are good enough too. I did actually look. With elections no one is looking. People have no idea. Non of them! There is not one journalist who knows anything. For each million voters one or two have watched a single video from a candidate other than the top 2. A video by a 5 year old on tiktok gets more attention online than the entire list of election programs. I could see logic in getting advice from an expert on something or from your mum but if they know absolutely nothing about the topic?!?! The voter is therefore brainwashed into irrelevance, she won't influence elections in any way.
- addandsubtract 2y ago
  >There is not one journalist who knows anything. This seems like a brazenly false statement. Also genuinely worrying, as you're discrediting all journalists based on... your feelings? Something that has been pushed for over the last 8 years by one party under the guise of labels such as "fake news" and "mainstream media". Maybe you meant to say "everything", but parroting anti-news propaganda is only making everyone less informed and only benefits the side that isn't campaigning in good faith.

JellyBeanThief 2y ago

All that means is that we don't have a one-person one-vote system. Some people's votes matter more than others. What we have is a case of civil inequality. If we build a system where everyone's votes count the same (radical and extreme idea, I know), then each person will have the same fundamental incentive to vote.

Zigurd 2y ago
Direct election of the US president would be an improvement. Expanding the House of Representatives as originally formulated, or similarly, would help. Making the Senate reflect the population better by dividing populous states, and/or a statehood option for Puerto Rico and DC would help. Striking down gerrymanders would help. More contested down-ballot races would help. No excuse for the parties to not have strong organization and candidate recruitment at that level. No changes to laws needed for this.
renewiltord 2y ago
Well, it's a federation of states so you can't quite do that unless you abandon that conceit.
- kibwen 2y ago
  No, devolving powers to the states is what makes it a federation. Having a state-representative legislative chamber makes it a federation. Electing a federal president via popular vote does not indicate defederation any more than the existence of the House of Representatives does.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Electing a president via popular vote would give populous states disproportionate influence over the country compared to other states. That is important because the president could do obnoxious things against the best interest of any particular state, especially ones with less influence. The stuff happening to your home state is way more relevant to your life than your political party or special interests.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Arbitrary lines on maps are arbitrary. North & South Dakota are far more similar than north and south California.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        The lines on maps are not arbitrary. People decided them by choice and in some cases by force. You might feel no particular attachment to your state, but if another state decided that your state should be exploited in some way, your primary source of support would be your neighbors within those so-called arbitrary lines.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        I used North and South Dakota for a reason. The only reason they were split was to hijack the Senate.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        That is misleading. There was no state of Dakota. The two became states at the same time. Even Wikipedia says this: >Regionalist tensions between the northern and the southern parts of the territory were present since the beginning. So, the split was not likely about senate seats. It was about people getting along within each state.
    - Zigurd 2y ago
zarathustreal 2y ago
> we don’t have a one-person one-vote system. Correct, and that’s a good thing! Intelligence is not evenly distributed among individuals, and susceptibility to psyops and propaganda is a huge issue. The plain truth of the matter is that a majority of people simply aren’t qualified to weigh in on national issues. True democracy works when you’ve got a small group of like-minded individuals of roughly equal stature (13 original colonies) but not when you’ve got an entire empire (Roman republic)

kej 2y ago

There is more on your ballot than the president, you know.

jqpabc123 2y ago
Unless you happen to live in a swing area, the results for most other races conform to well known and even pre-determined trends. There are very few such areas. Voters, candidates and the political parties know this.

gsk22 2y ago

The presidency is not the only election on the ballot. And if you ask people who don't vote why not, very few of them are going to mention the electoral college. I would wager most people who don't vote couldn't even explain what the electoral college is.

blacksmith_tb 2y ago
Probably they couldn't explain it, but many of them will have taken to heart the idea that "my vote doesn't matter". Which is especially sad, since like you say there are potentially all kinds of local and regional races and ballot measures their vote could in fact have impacted.
atmavatar 2y ago
In many districts, your vote for US House and Senate seats largely doesn't matter, either. For many people, those are the only elections they are thinking about when it comes to November. Senate seats are elected state-wide, so they largely go the same way as the presidential vote. If you're in a deep-red or deep-blue state (i.e., nearly all of them), your individual vote isn't going to make a difference. House seats are district-specific, but: a) the re-election rate of incumbents is over 90% b) districts are often drawn to lock-in control for a specific party State senate and house seats are often no better. However, much to the credit of the sibling response, there are all kinds of local and regional races as well as ballot initiatives that are important.
- gsk22 2y ago
  Setting aside gerrymandering (which is a huge issue), the reelection rate doesn't tell the whole story. By what margin are House candidates typically winning? I'm sure there are plenty of landslides, but also lots of districts that were decided by a few percent -- and those who don't vote could be a deciding factor in those races if they chose to vote. Or if we analyze this from an opportunity cost perspective, IMO voting is always the right choice. Maybe there's an 80% chance your vote "doesn't matter", but the cost is only 15 minutes of your time every 2 years. Isn't the 20% worth the risk? (OK, I am lucky enough to live in a state where voting lines are short. I understand it takes more than 15 mins for some people.)

alecco 2y ago

It's interesting how Occupy Wall Street was ridiculed by the press. I think they were onto something even though I don't agree with almost everything else they also believed in.

throwaway14356 2y ago

The problem is brainwashing. The formula is this: YOU learn all by yourself what all electable candidates say they want to do. YOU figure out all by yourself which ones LIE. One lie is enough, if they do it they keep doing it. And then YOU chose which election program you want to vote for. Ideally you chose what is best for the country but this is rather challenging for people. We can forgive them for being stuck thinking only of themselves. Why would it be perfectly obvious if one is ordering food but not for elections??? Food might taste bad and you might get food poisoning. A bad choice doesn't mean years of suffering. Does one not look at the menu card? Or do you ask your mum what to order? Do you roam around the restaurant looking what other people are eating? Do you order what CNN is screaming at you? If people scream at you from all directions that you should order the snails in garlic butter, does that mean you will never have to look at the menu the rest of your life? You can just eat snails every day, everyone else is eating snails every day???? Why are you not eating snails?? It is the nr 1 most sold food! Don't you want snails to be the nr 1 food? Then the restaurant switches to the cheapest worse possible snails because people will order it anyway because other people will order it. Is this a display of good taste? I hate apple but I buy iphone because they are good enough for what I need. I might get an android phone some day. They are good enough too. I did actually look. With elections no one is looking. People have no idea. Non of them! There is not one journalist who knows anything. For each million voters one or two have watched a single video from a candidate other than the top 2. A video by a 5 year old on tiktok gets more attention online than the entire list of election programs. I could see logic in getting advice from an expert on something or from your mum but if they know absolutely nothing about the topic?!?! The voter is therefore brainwashed into irrelevance, she won't influence elections in any way.

addandsubtract 2y ago
>There is not one journalist who knows anything. This seems like a brazenly false statement. Also genuinely worrying, as you're discrediting all journalists based on... your feelings? Something that has been pushed for over the last 8 years by one party under the guise of labels such as "fake news" and "mainstream media". Maybe you meant to say "everything", but parroting anti-news propaganda is only making everyone less informed and only benefits the side that isn't campaigning in good faith.