4 ms·

>One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics The citizens elect the government so ho

by Braxton1980 2y ago

>One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics The citizens elect the government so how can you not care about poltiics?

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
>The citizens elect the government so how can you not care about poltiics? I don't think there's a direct correlation between the ability to vote and caring about politics. People usually care about politics when it affects them negatively. I would guess that most people in most democratic systems don't have strong negative experiences with their governments and, thus, are not incentivized to care about politics. Note that I'm not making an argument that they should not care. I think they should, but the very system that allows participation probably also decreases the incentive for most people to participate.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  >. I would guess that most people in most democratic systems don't have strong negative experiences with their governments Opinion polls about political parties and leaders seem to always hover near the bottom end, at least in the US [1] [1] there are always bumps after elections (change), war (nationalism), and tragedy (group sympathy)
jowea 2y ago
Well, a bit. A part of liberal democracy is that elections don't matter that much. The losers can trust that they aren't going to be arrested, have their property confiscated etc. The established system like the courts, constitutions separation of powers and other anti-majoritarian things will prevent most extreme measures. And in at least some political systems, it is expect that no matter what some minimally competent people will win and govern not that differently from what the election loser was going to do. And remember voting is not mandatory and a lot of people don't vote. Those people are ultimately letting others decide, and a lot of them are hoping the voters are going to pick well, or at least decently.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  >The losers can trust that they aren't going to be arrested, have their property confiscated etc. Is that what people are worried about? What about the economy, civil rights, wars, etc. I'm very confused about your argument. Is it that who you vote for doesn't matter because they won't personally attack you and the policies of whatever politician won't harm you? >lot of them are hoping the voters are going to pick well, or at least decently. Considering how the popular vote is almost always close to being split (you know like +10/-10) why would a non voter have that trust when from their view it's a coinflip
  - jowea 2y ago
    > Is that what people are worried about? What about the economy, civil rights, wars, etc. I meant this more like what people could be worried about. In a functioning liberal democracy, there are things people usually don't worry about, which allows some people to just ignore politics. Sure the economy is an issue, but there isn't a serious communist contender in the election or a candidate wanting to start wars of conquest. Imagine this election. Candidate A you think will deliver GDP growth of 2+-0.5%. Candidate B you expect to deliver GDP growth of 3+-2% growth. No other big difference between them. Maybe you prefer A, maybe you don't, but in the end you'll probably be relatively fine either way. Now imagine this other election. Candidate A hates your ethnic group and you are likely going to be fired from your government job or worse if he wins. Candidate B is from your ethnic group and will do reverse Candidate A. Now the point is that this sort of election isn't supposed to happen in a functional liberal democracy. Consequences are rarely this extreme, and even when they are it's not a product of personal or group targeting just a general policy like "ban fracking", which means even affected people can still carry on with their lives. And also this is one of the reasons elections "work" at all. If the losers think they will be chased by the state after losing, there's no reason to participate in the election, might as well arm up before the polls and take your chances in the battlefield and/or negotiate directly with the other side's elites. > I'm very confused about your argument. Is it that who you vote for doesn't matter because they won't personally attack you and the policies of whatever politician won't harm you? > Considering how the popular vote is almost always close to being split (you know like +10/-10) why would a non voter have that trust when from their view it's a coinflip My point is that it's a coinflip between two acceptable choices. Some of those nonvoters would be literally undecided if asked who they prefer. It may matter, but not that much. And even if it does, it may matter in a way where the consequences are hard to predict or not obvious.

>One of the benefits a working democracy conveys to its citizens is that they largely don't have to care about politics The citizens elect the government so how can you not care about poltiics?

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

>The citizens elect the government so how can you not care about poltiics? I don't think there's a direct correlation between the ability to vote and caring about politics. People usually care about politics when it affects them negatively. I would guess that most people in most democratic systems don't have strong negative experiences with their governments and, thus, are not incentivized to care about politics. Note that I'm not making an argument that they should not care. I think they should, but the very system that allows participation probably also decreases the incentive for most people to participate.

Braxton1980 2y ago
>. I would guess that most people in most democratic systems don't have strong negative experiences with their governments Opinion polls about political parties and leaders seem to always hover near the bottom end, at least in the US [1] [1] there are always bumps after elections (change), war (nationalism), and tragedy (group sympathy)

jowea 2y ago

Well, a bit. A part of liberal democracy is that elections don't matter that much. The losers can trust that they aren't going to be arrested, have their property confiscated etc. The established system like the courts, constitutions separation of powers and other anti-majoritarian things will prevent most extreme measures. And in at least some political systems, it is expect that no matter what some minimally competent people will win and govern not that differently from what the election loser was going to do. And remember voting is not mandatory and a lot of people don't vote. Those people are ultimately letting others decide, and a lot of them are hoping the voters are going to pick well, or at least decently.

Braxton1980 2y ago
>The losers can trust that they aren't going to be arrested, have their property confiscated etc. Is that what people are worried about? What about the economy, civil rights, wars, etc. I'm very confused about your argument. Is it that who you vote for doesn't matter because they won't personally attack you and the policies of whatever politician won't harm you? >lot of them are hoping the voters are going to pick well, or at least decently. Considering how the popular vote is almost always close to being split (you know like +10/-10) why would a non voter have that trust when from their view it's a coinflip
- jowea 2y ago
  > Is that what people are worried about? What about the economy, civil rights, wars, etc. I meant this more like what people could be worried about. In a functioning liberal democracy, there are things people usually don't worry about, which allows some people to just ignore politics. Sure the economy is an issue, but there isn't a serious communist contender in the election or a candidate wanting to start wars of conquest. Imagine this election. Candidate A you think will deliver GDP growth of 2+-0.5%. Candidate B you expect to deliver GDP growth of 3+-2% growth. No other big difference between them. Maybe you prefer A, maybe you don't, but in the end you'll probably be relatively fine either way. Now imagine this other election. Candidate A hates your ethnic group and you are likely going to be fired from your government job or worse if he wins. Candidate B is from your ethnic group and will do reverse Candidate A. Now the point is that this sort of election isn't supposed to happen in a functional liberal democracy. Consequences are rarely this extreme, and even when they are it's not a product of personal or group targeting just a general policy like "ban fracking", which means even affected people can still carry on with their lives. And also this is one of the reasons elections "work" at all. If the losers think they will be chased by the state after losing, there's no reason to participate in the election, might as well arm up before the polls and take your chances in the battlefield and/or negotiate directly with the other side's elites. > I'm very confused about your argument. Is it that who you vote for doesn't matter because they won't personally attack you and the policies of whatever politician won't harm you? > Considering how the popular vote is almost always close to being split (you know like +10/-10) why would a non voter have that trust when from their view it's a coinflip My point is that it's a coinflip between two acceptable choices. Some of those nonvoters would be literally undecided if asked who they prefer. It may matter, but not that much. And even if it does, it may matter in a way where the consequences are hard to predict or not obvious.