I'm sorry but these people are absolutely insane. These are such weirdly entitled and lazy ways to look at the world. I'm not sure if it was the goal of this article to paint Gen-X and millennials...
I tried to register for the 2016 election, but it was beyond the deadline by the time I tried to do it. I hate mailing stuff; it gives me anxiety.
My parents are of the generation where they actually watch the news, and they know about candidates via the news. Where my generation, the millennial generation, is getting all their news from social media like Twitter or Instagram or Facebook, and that is not always the best. Reading things through social media is snippets, and it’s not the whole details on everything, you know?
It’s such a tedious process to even get registered in Texas, let alone vote as an absentee. There’s no notification service about the status of my voter registration. There’s a small, outdated website where you can enter your information and check.
I'm sorry but these people are absolutely insane. These are such weirdly entitled and lazy ways to look at the world. I'm not sure if it was the goal of this article to paint Gen-X and millennials as idiots, but as a millennial, I feel embarrassed. I agree that registering to vote could be easier but it is no way as impossible as these people are making it out to be. Some voters have actual excuses for not being able to register but they seemed to pick a bunch of people who just couldn't be bothered to take 20 minutes and fill out online forms.
I mean we're talking about people who are choosing not to vote. Does it really surprise you that many of them have what we would consider, shitty excuses? This whole article is a perfect example...
Some voters have actual excuses for not being able to register but they seemed to pick a bunch of people who just couldn't be bothered to take 20 minutes and fill out online forms.
I mean we're talking about people who are choosing not to vote. Does it really surprise you that many of them have what we would consider, shitty excuses?
This whole article is a perfect example of why voting should be opt-out not opt-in. Registration should be automatic and tied to something else we do as citizens - payroll, DMV, government benefits, etc. We should automatically send absentee ballots to everyone's home in case they can't make it out to the polls (or don't want to) for any reason.
I think we need better voters and not necessarily more voters. If you consider how democracy works to solve difficult questions - most people don't know the answer and are evenly distributed among...
I think we need better voters and not necessarily more voters. If you consider how democracy works to solve difficult questions - most people don't know the answer and are evenly distributed among options while some do know the answer and are entirely concentrated on the correct answer, by increasing the number of voters we potentially increase the noise in the system. If there's too much noise then the people who know what they are talking about are drowned out by those that don't.
If you don't follow politics, don't understand the issues, don't know the candidates, then you're actually helping by not voting.
Do you have proof that this is a problem anywhere where voting is mandatory or opt-out? While I understand the logic behind your thoughts on this hypothesis, I don't agree with it.
Do you have proof that this is a problem anywhere where voting is mandatory or opt-out?
While I understand the logic behind your thoughts on this hypothesis, I don't agree with it.
Proof is a high bar for the subject. I don't have any. It's also difficult to assess the quality of electoral results, so it's hard to say "Here's an educated electorate making usually good...
Proof is a high bar for the subject. I don't have any. It's also difficult to assess the quality of electoral results, so it's hard to say "Here's an educated electorate making usually good decisions versus an uneducated electorate making worse decisions."
What I can offer is thought experiments. Suppose that every voter had to take a simple test associating positions with candidates and positions with anticipated outcomes issued by experts. In other words, voters have to demonstrate political knowledge to vote. Is Donald Trump President in this world? Are politics better or worse?
Only ~15% of people could reliably pass that test according to the studies quoted in Democracy for Realists. There is no such thing as an educated electorate because the opportunity cost is too...
What I can offer is thought experiments. Suppose that every voter had to take a simple test associating positions with candidates and positions with anticipated outcomes issued by experts. In other words, voters have to demonstrate political knowledge to vote. Is Donald Trump President in this world? Are politics better or worse?
Only ~15% of people could reliably pass that test according to the studies quoted in Democracy for Realists.
There is no such thing as an educated electorate because the opportunity cost is too high to becoming an educated voter.
I'd be fine with restricting voting to the most informed 15%. Why not? Why should people who don't know what they are talking about have an equal say in democracy? Imagine we were watching a...
I'd be fine with restricting voting to the most informed 15%. Why not? Why should people who don't know what they are talking about have an equal say in democracy?
Imagine we were watching a technician defuse a nuclear bomb in the middle of LA. In the group watching, there you, and me, and 73 random people. In this group there's also 15 bomb defusal experts. Now, nobody knows exactly how to advise the technician because nobody has done this before so I say "I think the bomb defusal experts should talk this through and figure out what to do." Is your position that us random people should get equal say in the decision as the experts?
Politics is really complicated and really important and I have a really hard time believing that most people know enough about the issues to cast meaningful votes.
If I could design a test for voters I'd require that every law passed come with Key Performance Indicators. If you're writing a bill to help poverty you should be able to specify measurements that will mean your bill is successful or not, people helped, cost, etc. With the indicators you also have targets.
Potential voters, meanwhile, after each policy is accepted get a chance to register a prediction as to whether the targets will be met or not. As the time to vote approaches only voters who had a high accuracy in making predictions over the past few years would get to cast a vote. These people could presumably tell what certain policies would likely mean for the world.
Based on who's standards? You want to devise some sort of standardized test for voting success and eliminate anyone who doesn't pass your standardized test?
Based on who's standards? You want to devise some sort of standardized test for voting success and eliminate anyone who doesn't pass your standardized test?
Earlier I described how I'd make the test. Every law or policy has metrics and goals associated with it. When a law is passed there is a window of time for potential voters to predict whether the...
Earlier I described how I'd make the test. Every law or policy has metrics and goals associated with it. When a law is passed there is a window of time for potential voters to predict whether the law or policy will meet the goals or not within a time frame. On election time only potential voters who have made X predictions with Y accuracy get to vote.
There are mathematical ways to score predictors better than simple averages to account for the fact that some policies may be trivially easy to predict and those should be adopted. Voters could also be restricted to the top ~10% of predictors instead of just people who met a certain floor - that way competition would constantly be driving people to understand policies better.
Except laws have various positive and negative effects and different people have different opinions on the idea of success. Defining metrics of success depends on the person. Person 1 defines...
Exemplary
Except laws have various positive and negative effects and different people have different opinions on the idea of success. Defining metrics of success depends on the person. Person 1 defines success as less spend. Person 2 defines success as better outcomes in the topic. Who's right?
Laws are very complicated and often have unintended consequences. Gamifying lawmaking and making the stakes your right to participate in a representative democracy is insanity.
No, I mean that the people who pass the law must encode with the law the metrics of success. If your law is looking to reduce poverty you need some measurements to show your law is or isn't...
No, I mean that the people who pass the law must encode with the law the metrics of success. If your law is looking to reduce poverty you need some measurements to show your law is or isn't working as intended. Those measurements can be whatever the lawmakers involved think is important.
The metrics will have their own benefit as it will help law makers understand and consider the effects of their actions as they think about how they will measure them and what they want to achieve exactly. The side benefit is that they can be used to measure how well citizens can predict the outcome of policies. Letting people vote on politicians to make policies when the voters don't know what the policies are or what they'll do is insanity.
If that's the case I don't think consent of the governed is that important. In the US that's not really happening - less than half of people vote (138 million voters out of 325 million people). Is...
If that's the case I don't think consent of the governed is that important. In the US that's not really happening - less than half of people vote (138 million voters out of 325 million people). Is this indicative of consent of the governed? Fewer people vote in midterm elections. Laws are ruled on, ultimately, by unelected Justices on the Supreme Court. Career bureaucrats in regulatory agencies make regulations with the force of law that most people are entirely ignorant of. The current President was elected by fewer voters than his opponent had - and again, there were more people who didn't even vote.
There isn't really a way that the US has the consent of the governed now. I don't consent to this style of leadership for example even though I'm allowed to vote.
Even when people vote it isn't really consent as we don't vote on policies but on people to carry out and advocate those policies. One reason I supported Obama over McCain was that I thought we needed fewer wars in the Middle East, less of a drug war, socialized healthcare, and to massively curtail the influence of our intelligence agencies. I felt like Obama was closer to me on all those issues, but I also don't feel like he delivered what I wanted - so how does he have my consent to take office and not do the things I wanted?
Out of the whole population, most don't vote, there goes consent of the governed right there. Of those that do vote about half vote for the outcome that doesn't happen. Of the half that voted and the half of that that voted for the thing that happened actually get what they want and expected?
My system would have "consent of the governed" in a similar way. Anybody could vote if they only qualify be demonstrating that they understand policies and their likely results and they pay attention to public policies. Then, presumably, we would have people picking policies that would probably lead to good things.
Jesus, how lazy can you get? Millennials and gen-Z have grown up with instant access to just about any radio station, newspaper, and TV channel they want. It's like someone asked a boomer...
My parents are of the generation where they actually watch the news, and they know about candidates via the news. Where my generation, the millennial generation, is getting all their news from social media like Twitter or Instagram or Facebook, and that is not always the best. Reading things through social media is snippets, and it’s not the whole details on everything, you know?
Jesus, how lazy can you get? Millennials and gen-Z have grown up with instant access to just about any radio station, newspaper, and TV channel they want. It's like someone asked a boomer everything they dislike about millennials and went looking for people that match stereotypes for this article.
most states do, though, and only 3 people featured in this article would have been unable to register online (the New Jersey, Texas, and Arkansas possible voters)
most states do, though, and only 3 people featured in this article would have been unable to register online (the New Jersey, Texas, and Arkansas possible voters)
Here in Florida they just asked me if I wanted to register and what party I wanted to be affiliated with (Closed primaries) when I transferred my license. I wasn't even 18 yet.
Here in Florida they just asked me if I wanted to register and what party I wanted to be affiliated with (Closed primaries) when I transferred my license. I wasn't even 18 yet.
Two of the quotes in the parent comment are of people from Texas. One of which is in New York, presumably at college since it says she's trying to register in her hometown, so getting registered...
Two of the quotes in the parent comment are of people from Texas. One of which is in New York, presumably at college since it says she's trying to register in her hometown, so getting registered means mailing something to Texas, quite possibly her first time mailing anything ever.
She also said
There’s no notification service about the status of my voter registration. There’s a small, outdated website where you can enter your information and check.
Her case is exactly what I had to go through to update my address on my registration. Fill out the change of address, mail it in (which means buying stamps and an envelope because who has that on them), then refresh the same shitty website for a week until I see it's been processed.
Or what about Jocelyn in Massachusetts? Sure Massachusetts has online registration, but only for people with a driver's license, so Jocelyn has to go through the same mail in process.
I would understand if she was 10 and this was 1960. You can just google "how to mail something" though. It's really not very difficult. I mean, if you offered any of the people in this article 100...
means mailing something to Texas, quite possibly her first time mailing anything ever.
I would understand if she was 10 and this was 1960. You can just google "how to mail something" though. It's really not very difficult. I mean, if you offered any of the people in this article 100 bucks if they voted, there's no doubt in my mind they'd brave the "small outdated website", and figure out the dark, arcane incantations needed to mail something pretty quickly.
Voting for the right candidates would absolutely have more of an impact than 100 dollars over the course of their terms as it is though. I think the only actual reason none of them voted is because they don't view it as important enough. Despite what they say, for a young, middle class person, voting is not difficult barring a few extremely rare circumstances.
Polarization, even within a party. I don't have any words for how ridiculously stupid this sentiment is. Of course Bernie supported Hilary Clinton; they are in the same party. They weren't...
I volunteered for Bernie Sanders. I went to many rallies, I was at the first presidential debate in Las Vegas. But when he folded, then immediately went and defended Hillary, a person who he’s been campaigning against for 18 months, that just really killed it for me. I just have no respect for that.
Aaron | Age 25 | Atlanta, Georgia | Last Voted: 2016
Polarization, even within a party. I don't have any words for how ridiculously stupid this sentiment is. Of course Bernie supported Hilary Clinton; they are in the same party. They weren't opponents; they were figuring out who the leader of their team was.
This entire article just made me angry, but nobody made me angrier than Aaron, who provided the quote above.
Leadership races (even elections themselves) haven't always been primarily focused on slagging off your opponents, and I don't think that the race between Sanders and Clinton was particularly...
The candidates spend months tearing each other in the primaries
Leadership races (even elections themselves) haven't always been primarily focused on slagging off your opponents, and I don't think that the race between Sanders and Clinton was particularly vitriolic between the two. Also, I'm confident that it's not just that they're pretending to support each other; Sanders' ideals are certainly much more aligned with the Democrats than the Republicans, so it should come as zero surprise whatsoever that he supports the Democratic nominee, because that is who he is and what he supports.
Sanders and Clinton were never enemies, and this deep seated need for polarization that people seem to have is systemically driving everyone apart when there is absolutely no need to do so.
It's worth noting that sowing discord between Democrats, particularly by getting Bernie supporters to go against Hillary, was a primary tactic of the disinformation campaign back in 2016. I...
I remember going on reddit prior to the election and seeing a lot of people talking about how they were going to vote for Bernie but switched their pick to Trump after Hillary won the nomination. At the time I remember thinking that position was absurd given the policy and platform differences between Bernie and Trump, but I attributed a lot of it to sour grapes. It was the only explanation that made sense to me at the time. Knowing what we know now, I wonder how many of them were simply external influencers, lying in order to shift the opinions of actual US voters.
To some extent the primaries are a vetting process, or at least they're supposed to be. Hopefully by the time the general rolls around there's no surprises left and you're way out ahead of...
To some extent the primaries are a vetting process, or at least they're supposed to be. Hopefully by the time the general rolls around there's no surprises left and you're way out ahead of anything negative, but obviously it doesn't always work out that way.
I think at least some of the problem here could be how much incentive the media has to present a primary as divisive, and how necessary it is to earn media in a primary.
I think at least some of the problem here could be how much incentive the media has to present a primary as divisive, and how necessary it is to earn media in a primary.
Why do you think they're pretending? There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Bernie supported Hillary fully during the general elections. He obviously still thought he would be a better...
Why do you think they're pretending? There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Bernie supported Hillary fully during the general elections. He obviously still thought he would be a better candidate, but he wasn't running. There were two choices for him. Help Hillary, or hurt Hillary. That's all he could do. He obviously agrees with Hillary far more than he does Trump, so why wouldn't he support her?
The same goes for all of Trump's primary opponents. They may not like the guy personally, but his views align with theirs closer than Hillary's do. They obviously support the guy.
The thing that makes it even worse is he's from Georgia, where we having the closest gubernatorial race in the country. His vote, along with everyone else's in this state really, really matters.
The thing that makes it even worse is he's from Georgia, where we having the closest gubernatorial race in the country. His vote, along with everyone else's in this state really, really matters.
It's really bizarre how some people suddenly hated Sanders after he endorsed Clinton. It's either Trump or Clinton, so of course he's going to have to endorse Clinton. I believe he even said he'd...
It's really bizarre how some people suddenly hated Sanders after he endorsed Clinton. It's either Trump or Clinton, so of course he's going to have to endorse Clinton. I believe he even said he'd endorse whoever the Democratic nominee would be. If he didn't endorse her, we'd have gotten many more Sanders -> Trump voters and Clinton would have lost more badly.
People who for a long time felt unrepresented by either party, to the point of strongly not liking the leading candidates for either party, were excited to finally have a candidate who preached...
People who for a long time felt unrepresented by either party, to the point of strongly not liking the leading candidates for either party, were excited to finally have a candidate who preached values they liked. Having that candidate turn around and endorse someone who's values were far off from what they were was frustrating.
Those people were paying attention. All of "those" people that I know in real life and proclaim on the internet to support him like his honesty and sincerity. Bernie said at the very beginning of...
Those people were paying attention. All of "those" people that I know in real life and proclaim on the internet to support him like his honesty and sincerity. Bernie said at the very beginning of the primary process that he was going to endorse whoever the Democratic candidate turned out to be. He made it quite clear what his intentions were. Do those people want Bernie to lie or were they not paying attention?
They are not in the same party. Bernie is a progressive independent, Clinton is a neoliberal Democrat. Voting for Clinton would be like a UK Labour member voting LibDem. Neolibs suck and don't...
They are not in the same party. Bernie is a progressive independent, Clinton is a neoliberal Democrat.
Voting for Clinton would be like a UK Labour member voting LibDem.
Neolibs suck and don't deserve any progressive votes.
You want those people to vote you should put up a progressive, that is the only way to effectively oppose Republicans.
I understand the point that you're trying to raise here, but it's important to understand that they are in the same party. At the point that Sanders endorsed Clinton, he had three real options:...
They are not in the same party. Bernie is a progressive independent, Clinton is a neoliberal Democrat.
I understand the point that you're trying to raise here, but it's important to understand that they are in the same party.
At the point that Sanders endorsed Clinton, he had three real options:
Endorse Clinton
Endorse Trump
Endorse nobody
Anything other than "Endorse Clinton" would have been a scathing rebuke from a leader within the Democratic party, and effectively would have been endorsing Trump. In hindsight, that wouldn't have mattered (a loss is a loss) but at the time, the only real path forward for Sanders was to endorse the nominee, whomever it was, of his party. Similarly, I expect Clinton, a consummate politician, would have endorsed Sanders had he won.
Talking about their differences is important during the primaries, but when the primaries are over, you're categorically incorrect; they are in the same party, and they need to support each other.
Bernie is an independent, him caucusing with Dems is akin to a coalition. They are not in the same party. Even if they were there is a clear ideological divide (again, like Labour vs. LibDem), and...
Bernie is an independent, him caucusing with Dems is akin to a coalition. They are not in the same party.
Even if they were there is a clear ideological divide (again, like Labour vs. LibDem), and the only reason they are both aligned to the Democratic party in some way is because of our shitty FPTP system.
they need to support each other
Supporting neolibs does progressives no good. Neolibs will backstab progressives every chance they get.
For the purpose of the election, they most certainly were in the same party; Sanders was campaigning for the Democratic nomination. While I 100% agree, I think the idealogical divide between...
Even if they were
For the purpose of the election, they most certainly were in the same party; Sanders was campaigning for the Democratic nomination.
there is a clear ideological divide
While I 100% agree, I think the idealogical divide between Sanders and Clinton was dwarfed by the idealogical divide between Sanders and Trump.
Sigh. Look, I downright loath neoliberalism. I hold the opinion that neoliberalism laid the foundation for much of the political and economic strife in the Western world that we see today. But...
Sigh. Look, I downright loath neoliberalism. I hold the opinion that neoliberalism laid the foundation for much of the political and economic strife in the Western world that we see today.
But Hillary is not a neoliberal, she is just a plain old left-wing liberal (actual meaning of words used here, not stupid US definitions). Yeah, many Democrats - Hillary included - have been far too nice to actual neoliberals. That economic philosophy should be entirely rebuked by now, but Democrats have been far too keen on compromise and being centrists.
I agree that actual neoliberals should be opposed at every turn. But actual neoliberals that have been Democrats are people like that flaming shitbag Joe Lieberman, not Hillary.
No, Hillary is not left-wing, she is neoliberal through and through. She loves neoliberal pro-business policies like NAFTA, the TPP (until it became unpopular to like it), fracking, "affordable"...
But Hillary is not a neoliberal, she is just a plain old left-wing liberal
No, Hillary is not left-wing, she is neoliberal through and through. She loves neoliberal pro-business policies like NAFTA, the TPP (until it became unpopular to like it), fracking, "affordable" healthcare (as opposed to government funded healthcare), etc.
"Left-wing liberal" is pretty much an oxymoron, liberals are center-left at best.
That's exactly what Hillary is though. A left-wing liberal. Center-left (not much, but still left of center). Neoliberalism's hallmark policies are deregulation, privatization, and austerity -...
"Left-wing" liberal is pretty much an oxymoron, liberals are center-left at best.
That's exactly what Hillary is though. A left-wing liberal. Center-left (not much, but still left of center).
Neoliberalism's hallmark policies are deregulation, privatization, and austerity - i.e. fellating the free-market. Those are not policies that Hillary champions. She is not a neoliberal.
NAFTA and the TPP at their core are not bad policies. They just need to be paired with taxes levied on the big winners to take care of the big losers in those trade deals. Trade deals are generally good things, but only if they are fair to both business AND LABOR on both sides of the deals. NAFTA wasn't good at this and the TPP wasn't great either. Not passing the TPP though will have bad effects on the US in general, which sucks because it wasn't far off from being a decent trade deal (provided it was coupled with proper taxation of the winners domestically). It wasn't though and I have mixed feelings about it going down, but that's neither here nor there.
Please realize that I basically straddle the line between Democratic Socialist and Social Democrat so it's not like you're talking to some centrist.
Bill Clinton was very big on deregulation, and based on Googling around: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/09/22/hilary-clinton-deregulation-dodd-frank-glass-steagall-banks/72616930/ I...
Neoliberalism's hallmark policies are deregulation, privatization, and austerity - i.e. fellating the free-market. Those are not policies that Hillary champions. She is not a neoliberal.
Why people have to be emotional in all aspects of their lives? It makes sense to be emotional when you choose someone to marry with: you should 100% love this person. But, in politics, choosing...
Why people have to be emotional in all aspects of their lives? It makes sense to be emotional when you choose someone to marry with: you should 100% love this person. But, in politics, choosing the lesser of two evils can be the most important thing you ever do.
When I was at the post office to register, this poor girl, clearly also a college student like me, didn’t know what “postmarked” meant and had no idea how to send an important document by mail. Most people my age have zero need to go to the post office and may have never stepped into one before. Honestly, if someone had the forms printed for me and was willing to deal with the post office, I’d be much more inclined to vote.
You can blame the individual all you want because "look, it's so easy", but it's pretty obvious this kind of thing is a systemic problem with education.
You can blame the individual all you want because "look, it's so easy", but it's pretty obvious this kind of thing is a systemic problem with education.
But don't individuals make up the education system? We need good teachers first and foremost. Ones who aren't afraid to deviate a bit from the cookie cutter curriculums being handed down to them .
But don't individuals make up the education system?
We need good teachers first and foremost. Ones who aren't afraid to deviate a bit from the cookie cutter curriculums being handed down to them .
I see this is emblematic of just how awful our public education system has become (and no, I'm not here to shill charter schools). American children spend TWELVE YEARS in public education and are...
I see this is emblematic of just how awful our public education system has become (and no, I'm not here to shill charter schools). American children spend TWELVE YEARS in public education and are graduating with no understanding whatsoever about the most fundamental aspects of civic life. Not knowing how to use the mail!?!? Not knowing what the three branches of government are, not knowing the Bill of Rights, not understanding the importance of the vote.
As stupid, naive, and privileged as these kids sound, its not their fault. Their educational institutions utterly failed them - perhaps by design.
Not perhaps. Definitely. History and civics are not prioritized in modern American education. They were hardly a focus when I was a student, but the increased accountability brought on by NCLB and...
Exemplary
Their educational institutions utterly failed them - perhaps by design.
Not perhaps. Definitely.
History and civics are not prioritized in modern American education. They were hardly a focus when I was a student, but the increased accountability brought on by NCLB and standardized testing has all but gutted social studies as a subject. Here's a study from 2012 (PDF link) that surveyed a thousand teachers.
Some findings:
Two-thirds (66%) say that other subjects “get crowded out by extra attention being paid to
math or language arts”
About half (51%) of elementary school teachers say that when struggling students get
extra help in math or language arts, they get pulled out of other classes; the most likely
subjects are social studies (48%) and science (40%)
59% of elementary school teachers report that social studies has been getting less
instructional time and resources (28% middle school; 20% high school); 46% say the
same about science (20% middle school; 14% high school)
Why is this happening? Well, it's fairly simple: most states don't test in social studies. Furthermore, if they do, those scores are often not weighted nearly as heavily as those in math and English.
90% say that when a subject is included in the state’s system of testing, it is taken more
seriously, and 61% say it’s easier to get money for technology and materials for subjects
that are tested
Anecdotally speaking, I have worked in districts where the elementary schools would nearly eliminate social studies and science classes in favor of more time on ELA and math. The students would still have those classes on their schedule but a common occurrence was that they "wouldn't have time" to start them because they were too busy with the other subjects. This was passively, if not actively, encouraged by administration because ELA and math are the tested subjects, so they were the priority.
So is this a fault of the teachers? Or even the principals? I'm biased (I'm a teacher), but I'm going to go with no. Education is pretty transparently set up to fail. Students are asked to do too much, too quickly, and there is no contingency plan for any student who falls behind. The standards assume all students are high-level learners who maximize their learning capacity all day, every day, for twelve years. They are idealized. They assume perfection. It's a fool's errand.
I was talking with a principal one time, and she was on a bit of a rant about how her first grade teachers weren't getting through the required curriculum. She shared how she basically had to threaten the teachers with reprimands in order to get them to move on to new concepts in the curriculum, rather than staying on old ones that the students hadn't mastered yet. Mind you, the principal wasn't an evil dictator: she was legitimately was doing what she thought was in the students' best interest. She felt that the students all at least needed to see everything that first grade had to offer, lest they start out second grade with gaps.
On the other hand, her teachers had a point too: why should they move to a new concept when the students weren't proficient with the previous one? In math, which is particularly hierarchical, mastery of certain skills is prerequisite to others. They felt that their students needed more time to practice. After all, if they didn't master it now, while it was being taught, how were the students going to pick it up when they weren't teaching it?
There are no villains here. The principal was doing what she thought was best. The teachers were doing what they thought were best. The students were undoubtedly working their asses off, in first grade, to learn everything they were supposed to. So what's the problem? The setup in the first place. The villain is the idea that students are falling behind as early as first grade.
Almost two out of three teachers (65%) say they’ve “had to skip important topics in [my]
subject area in order to cover the required curriculum”
The culture of accountability in education has created a system that is designed to fail. It demands success but sets the parameters so high that we will never, ever reach them. It puts America's children on a treadmill, sets the pace too fast, and then tells teachers we're failing our kids every time they stumble. Those teachers who are dropping history to teach ELA and math? They're not doing it because they don't like history or don't think it's valuable. They're doing it because they're tired of watching kids trip and fall on their runs through ELA and math, and "history" is one of the only times they can find in their day to help them back up.
From my experience teaching college students, and remembering my own education, a big part of the issue is that civics classes are taught to students that are too young. I was in one of the...
From my experience teaching college students, and remembering my own education, a big part of the issue is that civics classes are taught to students that are too young. I was in one of the nominally-best public school systems in the country, and was certainly taught civics pretty thoroughly, but that was in 7th grade. And it's a rare 7th grader that actually cares how the government works!
What'd be nice is a requirement that any university which receives public money (even in the form of student loans or research group grants) have four units of civics education as a graduation requirement. That's not to say the average 18-22 cares how the government works either, but they certainly have more reason to care than a middle schooler.
I forgot to mention this, but from my experience - anecdotally of course - we didn't even have a civics class. I'm not even sure if one was available as an elective. The only civics education we...
I forgot to mention this, but from my experience - anecdotally of course - we didn't even have a civics class. I'm not even sure if one was available as an elective. The only civics education we got was at best a few weeks crammed into history / social studies as an afterthought.
I was fortunate enough to have the cool teacher who told us not to talk to cops and walked us through how the bill of rights protects us - but I am certain that was the exception to the norm.
Hell, half of the history we learned was in English class reading literature about the Holocaust. At least they managed to hammer that lesson in thoroughly.
Same. Before the Internet, we had pen-pals. This is like second/third grade in the mid-90s. I was a shitty pen-pal, but at least I learned how to mail a damn envelope.
Same. Before the Internet, we had pen-pals. This is like second/third grade in the mid-90s. I was a shitty pen-pal, but at least I learned how to mail a damn envelope.
Amen. I'm curious how they selected this sample, it seems to have a lot more people who have rejected electoral politics than my (admittedly anecdotal) experience would suggest.
“Oh, we need the Democratic Senate to pack the courts.” But have they watched the Democratic Party at any time during my lifetime? They have not done anything. Like, they don’t stand for anything. And I just don’t see the point anymore.
Amen.
I'm curious how they selected this sample, it seems to have a lot more people who have rejected electoral politics than my (admittedly anecdotal) experience would suggest.
If you don't like what they stand for, why not get involved or vote for the candidate that does? I think the electoral system is broken as fuck but that will never stop me from voicing myself with...
If you don't like what they stand for, why not get involved or vote for the candidate that does?
I think the electoral system is broken as fuck but that will never stop me from voicing myself with a vote. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy if you don't.
Several people in the article are doing exactly that. And to ward off anyone criticizing me I will be voting, at least for any position that has a non-zero chance of republican victory.
Several people in the article are doing exactly that.
And to ward off anyone criticizing me I will be voting, at least for any position that has a non-zero chance of republican victory.
There aren't any candidates to vote for. Most of them lose primaries to some ancient incumbent Democrat who is one comment about the migrant caravan away from being a Republican at worst, and...
There aren't any candidates to vote for. Most of them lose primaries to some ancient incumbent Democrat who is one comment about the migrant caravan away from being a Republican at worst, and basically Chuck "restaurant confrontations are just as bad as mail bombs" Schumer at best.
Once you get to the general if there isn't a progressive on the ballot there's no point.
That's just wholly untrue. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a fact of our voting system and is called being an adult. Every greater evil you put into office by doing nothing makes it that...
That's just wholly untrue.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is a fact of our voting system and is called being an adult. Every greater evil you put into office by doing nothing makes it that much harder for people who don't suck to get into office and actually accomplish some good while they are there.
The "lesser of two evils" system is why Democrats are so shit in the first place. They'd much rather be a lesser evil than a force for good, and by voting for them we allow that.
The "lesser of two evils" system is why Democrats are so shit in the first place. They'd much rather be a lesser evil than a force for good, and by voting for them we allow that.
So the solution is clearly double down on a centrist Republican lite, since that's been working great. The answer is never to move towards what the voting base is saying they want.
So the solution is clearly double down on a centrist Republican lite, since that's been working great. The answer is never to move towards what the voting base is saying they want.
Lets go ahead and compare the last several presidents - republican and democrat... Democrats: Barack Obama Bill Clinton Jimmy Carter Republican: Trump George Bush George HW Bush If we look at...
So the solution is clearly double down on a centrist Republican lite, since that's been working great.
Lets go ahead and compare the last several presidents - republican and democrat...
Democrats:
Barack Obama
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter
Republican:
Trump
George Bush
George HW Bush
If we look at president rankings by historians, it's pretty clear that recent democratic presidents just tend to do a better job.
So yeah, I disagree. I think you're being selfish by considering your own values more important than the progress of the united states and the well being of its millions of inhabitants.
I meant more as it's been "working great" in that Republicans currently dominate all three branches of government. Centrist Democrats keep losing, keep thinking the solution is to be more...
I meant more as it's been "working great" in that Republicans currently dominate all three branches of government. Centrist Democrats keep losing, keep thinking the solution is to be more conservative and then losing again. Or winning and agreeing that we should get rid of birthright citizenship which isn't really a win.
Obviously Republican presidents are doing a shittier job. Despite the terrible job that so many Republicans are doing, Democrats keep fucking losing to them by trying to never take a stance on anything and being as moderate as possible in hopes that the single issue "I hate Mexicans" voter will change his mind and go Democrat. God forbid they tried to cater to a progressive voter who wants health care.
While I agree, we're talking about voting (or more specifically, not voting) for the president here, and choosing one party over the other as a "lesser of two evils" situation.
While I agree, we're talking about voting (or more specifically, not voting) for the president here, and choosing one party over the other as a "lesser of two evils" situation.
The ONLY way to get rid of the lesser of two evils voting is to change the voting system. And that pretty much necessitates a constitutional amendment. You must have the backing of one of the...
The ONLY way to get rid of the lesser of two evils voting is to change the voting system. And that pretty much necessitates a constitutional amendment. You must have the backing of one of the major parties to even have a shot at doing what you want/need to do. There is only one party that would even begin to consider such legislation and it isn't the Republicans.
So you can either make it easier for Republicans and assholes like Trump and McConnell to win, or you can join me in changing the Democratic party from the ground up.
You're not punishing the Democrats by not voting for them, you're punishing yourself and the rest of us. Yes I hate the system just like you do, but until the system gets reformed you have to work inside of it. Sitting on the sidelines only fucks people like me who have similar aims to your own and yourself.
No, there are zero parties that would even begin to consider such legislation. Not even the most prominent progressives (like Bernie) have even mentioned something like instant runoff voting. And...
There is only one party that would even begin to consider such legislation and it isn't the Republicans.
No, there are zero parties that would even begin to consider such legislation. Not even the most prominent progressives (like Bernie) have even mentioned something like instant runoff voting. And the lesser evil type Democrats would never be for it because they benefit from the lesser of two evils system.
or you can join me in changing the Democratic party from the ground up.
I would happily do so if there were any progressives on my primary ballot, but there weren't. If I were in the district of someone like AOC or Randy Bryce I'd be excited to vote for them.
C'mon. That false equivalence isn't true: http://www.sunjournal.com/stark-divide-on-ranked-choice-voting/ Voting is not the only thing you need to do if you want change. It means getting involved...
No, there are zero parties that would even begin to consider such legislation. Not even the most prominent progressives (like Bernie) have even mentioned something like instant runoff voting. And the lesser evil type Democrats would never be for it because they benefit from the lesser of two evils system.
I would happily do so if there were any progressives on my primary ballot, but there weren't. If I were in the district of someone like AOC or Randy Bryce I'd be excited to vote for them.
Voting is not the only thing you need to do if you want change. It means getting involved in your local party and changing it as well.
One state and a couple cities (like San Francisco) is barely anything. No Democrat is calling for federally mandated IRV. Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of rich fucks want to listen to some kid...
One state and a couple cities (like San Francisco) is barely anything. No Democrat is calling for federally mandated IRV.
It means getting involved in your local party and changing it as well.
Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of rich fucks want to listen to some kid (relatively) talk about instant runoff voting and giving up their healthcare lobby money by passing Medicare for All.
....Yet. I mean, that's how you enact real change, by changing the politico's minds.
One state and a couple cities (like San Francisco) is barely anything. No Democrat is calling for federally mandated IRV.
....Yet.
Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of rich fucks want to listen to some kid (relatively) talk about instant runoff voting and giving up their healthcare lobby money by passing Medicare for All.
I mean, that's how you enact real change, by changing the politico's minds.
Considering all of the empathy and understanding to different world experiences people have had while mocking the non voters in this thread, surely the majorities in those parties are open and...
Considering all of the empathy and understanding to different world experiences people have had while mocking the non voters in this thread, surely the majorities in those parties are open and willing to change!
I mean, I'm one of those people and I actually interact with the ones you are decrying right here. Yeah, you'll get mocked for not voting, because that's essentially denying reality. Just because...
I mean, I'm one of those people and I actually interact with the ones you are decrying right here.
Yeah, you'll get mocked for not voting, because that's essentially denying reality. Just because you want something to be true or different doesn't mean it is. It's like being the political theory equivalent of an anti-vaxxer, the research proves you wrong, but you want so desperately to be something different because you don't like the inevitable conclusions that arise from reality.
You're also not going to receive a favorable reaction from people who are involved and treat voting seriously when you tell them that you reject that very thing.
For all of the "voting is serious business" in this thread, almost nobody has treated it like a priority to make voting easier or solve the problems listed in the original article. It's lots of...
people who are involved and treat voting seriously
For all of the "voting is serious business" in this thread, almost nobody has treated it like a priority to make voting easier or solve the problems listed in the original article. It's lots of "dumb kids these days going to the post office isn't hard" instead of questioning why the process is even a little difficult in the first place. If everyone cared about increasing participation as much as it seems, we'd see suggestions on how to solve the problems listed in the article. But instead everyone just wants to mock them and say their problems aren't valid or they're not a good enough reason to complain.
Almost nobody? You mean like the majority of Democratically controlled states? The Democratic party across this country is trying to push various forms of same day voter registration, expansions...
Almost nobody? You mean like the majority of Democratically controlled states? The Democratic party across this country is trying to push various forms of same day voter registration, expansions of voting days, automatic voter registration, vote-by-mail initiatives and similar.
I don't buy your reasoning or your stance, I'm sorry. It just seems like another version of "both sides are the same".
we'd see suggestions on how to solve the problems listed in the article. But instead everyone just wants to mock them and say their problems aren't valid or they're not a good enough reason to complain.
Hard Truth: The only way you're going to see solutions to these issues is with Democratically controlled governments (state and federal). Many of the complaints are valid, but they are not going to be solved by complaining about it on the internet or on the news, they will be solved by people caring enough to look at who may be advancing solutions to their issues right this very second (lots of Democrats).
Almost nobody in this thread. They're all competing to bitch about youths these days. I'm well aware that in places with Democratic leadership things are being done about the problem, because...
Almost nobody?
Almost nobody in this thread. They're all competing to bitch about youths these days. I'm well aware that in places with Democratic leadership things are being done about the problem, because thankfully not everyone shares the "Stupid kids need to bootstrap it up" attitude that is prevailing in this discussion.
It's just disheartening seeing lots of pretty valid complaints from disillusioned young voters being chalked up to "These dumb lazy kids need to shut up and do their civic duty" and that's it.
I think it's more likely that the Democrats are shit because a huge portion of left wingers just don't fucking vote, and haven't for decades, so the party chases more likely voters in the center.
I think it's more likely that the Democrats are shit because a huge portion of left wingers just don't fucking vote, and haven't for decades, so the party chases more likely voters in the center.
There is not much evidence that there is a significant portion of voters that "swing" based on wanting centrist policy. Swing voters exist, but they largely vote based on candidate charisma and...
There is not much evidence that there is a significant portion of voters that "swing" based on wanting centrist policy. Swing voters exist, but they largely vote based on candidate charisma and their own emotions, not policy.
The entire "going after the centrist vote" is based on a very flawed and incorrect assumption about the makeup of the electorate and the characteristics of the average "swing" voter. It's a theory that doesn't hold up to reality, electoral outcomes, because it makes very wrong assumptions upfront. How the Democratic party hasn't figured this out after two decades of that model failing, I don't know (it's probably $$$ related).
All those left wingers not voting for Bernie in 2016... Left wingers don't vote because there are no left wing candidates. If they wanted left wing votes (they don't) they would run left wing...
All those left wingers not voting for Bernie in 2016...
Left wingers don't vote because there are no left wing candidates. If they wanted left wing votes (they don't) they would run left wing candidates.
Interesting how no one in this thread has quoted Thomas: Emphasis mine. The Democratic party would learn a lot if they listened to people like Thomas. Offer better candidates and solutions past...
Interesting how no one in this thread has quoted Thomas:
Thomas | Age 28 | New York, New York | Last Voted: September 2018, New York Democratic Primary
I vote when I feel like I have to. But I mostly consider it something that sucks a lot of people’s time and energy away from actually building power with the people around them.
New York especially has a pretty vibrant tenant-organizing scene. You see organizing around community gardens, around people protesting new development going in, people working against rezoning. Regardless of the outcome of those things, I think people leave with a sense of empowerment. You might have failed this fight, but now you know your neighbor. Now you have a whole network you can call up the next time this happens. But if you lose an election, or the candidate you’re pushing loses, then what do you have after that? You have this kind of despair for the next two or four or whatever years.
If we get to a blue wave in the midterms and then things just continue on, people will feel deflated and check out. Which is why I think you’ve got to have something besides just strategic voting, or people resigning themselves to a candidate they don’t love but who is at least a Democrat.
In 2008, I was extremely enthusiastic to vote for Barack Obama. But over the years, I started to understand the electoral system as exactly how I’ve characterized it. For a while, I thought it was an immoral act to vote. It means that we’re giving our approval to a system that I totally do not want to validate. Over the years, I’ve started to think maybe we don’t have to frame this so much as an individual act with these moral consequences and that I need to stop being so dramatic about it. So, for instance, I voted for Cynthia Nixon in the primary recently. I teach at CUNY. Insofar as she was in a position where she could have been elected and made a difference in this, yes, I’ll take the five minutes out of my day to go vote. But it’s not something that we should, as a society, be making the horizon of our political organizing.
My polling place is at the end of my block. It takes no time at all; it’s an extremely easy process. But I think that’s also what makes it seem sort of alienating and anticlimactic. You go in and you’re like, “This is the climax of democracy,” like, the sticker on my chest is the climax of democracy.
Emphasis mine.
The Democratic party would learn a lot if they listened to people like Thomas. Offer better candidates and solutions past "just vote and it will all get better".
Edit: listen to Drew as well:
Drew | Age 21 | Berkeley, California | Last Voted: 2016
I feel like the Democratic Party doesn’t really stand for the things I believe in anymore. Why should I vote for a party that doesn’t really do anything for me as a voter? Millennials don’t vote because a lot of politicians are appealing to older voters. We deserve politicians that are willing to do stuff for our future instead of catering to people who will not be here for our future. I’m a poli-sci major, so talking about politics is a daily thing for me. Half of the people I talk to seem very into voting. The other half are people who, like me, don’t really feel represented. The only thing they choose to vote in is local elections.
I am surprised I had to go this far down the thread to find a post like this. A whole lot of these people are saying they don't feel inspired to vote because they don't think any candidates...
I am surprised I had to go this far down the thread to find a post like this. A whole lot of these people are saying they don't feel inspired to vote because they don't think any candidates represent their interests. Like over and over the refrain is "We want a candidate who represents policies we agree with" and we've got a whole thread here with dozens of replies bitching about lazy kids these days.
Just post after post above here saying oh these darn lazy kids don't even know how to use a post office! And completely ignoring everything else.
Nevermind that voter registration shouldn't even be a thought - anyone who complains about it being hard for them, they're an entitled lazy brat. Sure they have a social security card and a driver's license and the government knows where to get their tax money - but oh no, it's impossible that the government could automatically register everyone and not place artificial barriers. Let's blame all the people complaining about the barriers instead of removing them.
And also everyone apparently is bound and determined to just completely ignore the fact that young people want someone who isn't a Right of Center corporate stooge as the alternative to literal fascists.
they're not going to get that if they don't engage in the process though. parties go for people who vote, not people who don't. if you don't vote or engage or participate, you can't complain when...
And also everyone apparently is bound and determined to just completely ignore the fact that young people want someone who isn't a Right of Center corporate stooge as the alternative to literal fascists.
they're not going to get that if they don't engage in the process though. parties go for people who vote, not people who don't. if you don't vote or engage or participate, you can't complain when parties don't reflect what you want. refusing/not bothering to vote is for that reason alone kinda stupid.
Which means it will always be heavily biased towards conservative retirees since they're the ones that have nothing but free time. Why is that? We have a system designed to shove people into...
parties go for people who vote, not people who don't.
Which means it will always be heavily biased towards conservative retirees since they're the ones that have nothing but free time.
if you don't vote or engage or participate, you can't complain when parties don't reflect what you want.
Why is that? We have a system designed to shove people into either conservative or extremely conservative, and you think it's the fault of people who feel unrepresented for not sucking it up and voting for one for you?
This entire attitude is a major part of the problem - you see evidence of people who feel disenfranchised by the system, and all anyone wants to do is complain about the people who are disenfranchised not participating in the system right. This COULD be a thread full of people saying "What policies will help young people feel more engaged and encourage them to be part of the process?" Instead it's a thread full of "Stupid kids, aren't bothering to vote for people I like. Dumbasses should get with the system and do what I do. Their complaints aren't valid and they should just suck it up."
Shockingly, when you read an article with a dozen kids sharing their concerns (many of which could be easily addressed) and your takeaway is to mock them and call them stupid, those people don't feel encouraged by you to participate.
yeah, pretty much? the system sucks, my guy, but until people rise over it and replace it, if you want shit to change you're gonna have to work within it. refusing to vote just neuters your voice....
Why is that? We have a system designed to shove people into either conservative or extremely conservative, and you think it's the fault of people who feel unrepresented for not sucking it up and voting for one for you?
yeah, pretty much? the system sucks, my guy, but until people rise over it and replace it, if you want shit to change you're gonna have to work within it. refusing to vote just neuters your voice. nobody gives a shit what you think if you're not voting, engaging, etc.
This COULD be a thread full of people saying "What policies will help young people feel more engaged and encourage them to be part of the process?" Instead it's a thread full of "Stupid kids, aren't bothering to vote for people I like. Dumbasses should get with the system and do what I do. Their complaints aren't valid and they should just suck it up."
they can't get their policies if they don't vote or engage. the burden ultimately isn't on parties to reach out to people who don't vote or engage.
Shockingly, when you read an article with a dozen kids sharing their concerns (many of which could be easily addressed) and your takeaway is to mock them and call them stupid, those people don't feel encouraged by you to participate.
honestly? that's their loss then. like i said, don't engage? you can't expect to be reflected in the party. that's just the reality of the system. i'm pretty left leaning and even i recognize that. the system has no interest in changing itself. you have to be the change if you want change to happen, and you can only do that if you vote or engage ultimately.
This is horrifically bad political strategy. The most successful GOTV efforts are the ones who turn non-voters into voters. All in all, I think both of you (edward and you) are wrong. It's both...
the burden ultimately isn't on parties to reach out to people who don't vote or engage.
This is horrifically bad political strategy. The most successful GOTV efforts are the ones who turn non-voters into voters.
All in all, I think both of you (edward and you) are wrong. It's both the party's and the voter's responsibilities. The Democratic party has stupidly been ignoring their duty for a while, but so have a ton of voters on the left.
i don't think it is, honestly. i think there's actually a case to be made that the best--not necessarily the most successful, since in my mind successful means it did its job which is get enough...
This is horrifically bad political strategy. The most successful GOTV efforts are the ones who turn non-voters into voters.
i don't think it is, honestly. i think there's actually a case to be made that the best--not necessarily the most successful, since in my mind successful means it did its job which is get enough people out to win--GOTV operations would never have to rely on more than a handful of non-voters in the first place; rather, those operations would seek to turn out as many leaning or likely voters of a similar ideological bent as possible.
now of course on some level it's necessary to reach out to non-voters, but non-voters take a lot of money and effort to push into the column of even possible voters, much less likely voters, partially because non-voters are non-voters for a reason and partially because it's hard to know how to reach out to them in the first place. there's a reason why political independents, and not non-voters loom so large in american politics--it's easier, less expensive, and more productive to get people who vote out than it is to get people who don't out. you can see this in action a lot in campaigning; very, very few campaigns make it any more than a minor priority to get out non-voters or unlikely voters. the ones that do make it a significant priority, like beto o'rourke's big campaign in texas, or AOC's earlier primary campaign are either doing it because they have the money or because they literally need those unlikely voters to turn out to score a win in the first place.
really, i think the only way that GOTV campaigns that turn out non-voters are objectively any better than GOTV campaigns which don't and are based in getting out ideologically similar people is in their ability to create long-term voters--but that's kind of a crapshoot, so.
The basis for your entire premise has been torpedoed for the last two decades, yet you refuse to give it up. If appealing to mythical "independents" and swing-voters actually worked, the Democrats...
there's a reason why political independents, and not non-voters loom so large in american politics--it's easier, less expensive, and more productive to get people who vote out than it is to get people who don't out
The basis for your entire premise has been torpedoed for the last two decades, yet you refuse to give it up. If appealing to mythical "independents" and swing-voters actually worked, the Democrats would crush every single election.
There is plenty of data to show that the majority of swing voters are not ideologically motivated. They vote based on the relative charisma (likability, "have a beer with") of the candidates and their own feelings at the time, which aren't policy driven. The reason they loom so large in American politics is based on a bunch of people making the same incorrect and misleading assumptions about the American electorate; that they are essentially "centrists", and then the Democrats make really, really shitty electoral strategy off of that. This very common mistake, oddly also coincidentally empowers business interests and results in significantly more business friendly policy.
There is a reason why field operations are so effective, they have the biggest effect/$ spent and they are basically the only method that registers and ability to turn a non-voter or an unlikely-voter into a voter.
these "mythical independents" you're currently deriding are an increasingly large portion of the voting base and are the main basis by which democrats are on track to win by eight or nine points...
The basis for your entire premise has been torpedoed for the last two decades, yet you refuse to give it up. If appealing to mythical "independents" and swing-voters actually worked, the Democrats would crush every single election.
There is plenty of data to show that the majority of swing voters are not ideologically motivated. They vote based on the relative charisma (likability, "have a beer with") of the candidates and their own feelings at the time, which aren't policy driven. The reason they loom so large in American politics is based on a bunch of people making the same incorrect and misleading assumptions about the American electorate; that they are essentially "centrists", and then the Democrats make really, really shitty electoral strategy off of that. This very common mistake, oddly also coincidentally empowers business interests and results in significantly more business friendly policy.
these "mythical independents" you're currently deriding are an increasingly large portion of the voting base and are the main basis by which democrats are on track to win by eight or nine points this year in the house and could potentially pull off a coup in the senate.
if you want to talk a bad electoral strategy, not appealing to independents and swing voters is a bad electoral strategy. independents are thirty percent of the electorate and have been for decades, and young voters who do actually vote increasingly do not register with the big two parties. have fun trying to win elections when you completely give up on the fastest growing group of political voters in the country in favor of a get out to vote campaign aimed at people who don't even consistently vote to begin. you'll probably find that you'll spend more money for a worse result. if getting non-voters out to vote was a good strategy for most campaigns, it'd already be the standard--but it's not. like i said before, the only campaigns which make it a big part of their strategy? the ones that literally need it to win, and have no other options. campaigns aren't stupid. they have more resources and access to data than any of us fuckers. if it was a strategy they knew would be more effective than what they have, they'd already be doing it on a widespread basis.
Two problems with your assumptions: Are those people voting on policy? No. They are voting on disgust and anger with the Trump administration. They are not craving more centrist policy....
these "mythical independents" you're currently deriding are an increasingly large portion of the voting base and are the main basis by which democrats are on track to win by eight or nine points this year in the house and could potentially pull off a coup in the senate.
Two problems with your assumptions:
Are those people voting on policy? No. They are voting on disgust and anger with the Trump administration. They are not craving more centrist policy.
Independents are only a growing voting block because fewer people are currently self-identifying as Republican. Hence the growing right-wing skew of self-identifying independents.
I'm not going to quote large sections of your post but once again, show me the results. The Democratic party has been bending over backwards doing exactly what you describe for the past several decades. They haven't been in a weaker position than the current one in decades. They lost to Trump with this terrible strategy, there was never a larger contrast between someone being relatively centrist and appealing to independents vs a raging, extremist asshole. How can you continue to defend this strategy when it does nothing but lose what should be gimmie elections?
the ones that literally need it to win, and have no other options. campaigns aren't stupid. they have more resources and access to data than any of us fuckers.
Yeah, the appeal to authority you're making right here? I'm one of those authorities. Hi, nice to meet you.
The problem is that they don't have resources. Useful voter outreach costs a lot of money, and only in this election and 2008 have they really had the money to do it. Guess what? Minority turnout is way up, young voter turnout is way up, first time voter turnout is way up, people are showing up for midterms that only vote in presidential elections.
The problem will come if we don't have as money in 2022 and revert back to the bad and proven losing strategy of spending our meager resources on the mythical independents based on bad assumptions and proven-false theories about the electorate.
that's basically a policy vote, buddy. a vote against trump is an explicit vote for democratic policy--trump is intrinsically linked with the current policy of all republicans, and he's the main...
Are those people voting on policy? No. They are voting on disgust and anger with the Trump administration. They are not craving more centrist policy.
that's basically a policy vote, buddy. a vote against trump is an explicit vote for democratic policy--trump is intrinsically linked with the current policy of all republicans, and he's the main driving force of their policy even if you entertain the idea he's not the one proposing most of it.
oh and for the record, this is a great way to lose the shit out of the senate. people in tennessee and arizona and north dakota and indiana do not want liberals or leftists, they want centrists. there's a reason kyrsten sinema--who is a centrist democrat--is winning in arizona, but david garcia--who is a progressive democrat--is losing. this idea that centrist policy isn't the best strategy in most states reeks of an ideological bubble that desperately needs to be burst before it loses democrats layup races under the mistaken idea that because states voted for bernie sanders in the 2016 primaries or whatever = a clamoring for progressive policies.
I'm not going to quote large sections of your post but once again, show me the results. The Democratic party has been bending over backwards doing exactly what you describe for the past several decades. They haven't been in a weaker position than the current one in decades. They lost to Trump with this terrible strategy, there was never a larger contrast between someone being relatively centrist and appealing to independents vs a raging, extremist asshole. How can you continue to defend this strategy when it does nothing but lose what should be gimmie elections?
well for one thing, literally the election of doug jones and ralph northam suggest that centrism actually plays pretty well, given that it... you know, won elections. but more importantly, hillary lost to donald because she was cocky and didn't campaign in places where she should have. if she'd been more proactive in campaigning, she'd have probably won. you cannot claim that a strategy which got three million more people to vote for her than donald trump does not work, because that's ridiculous. we just happen to also live in a country where what the voters say they want is effectively a non-binding referendum because for some reason we prioritize the distribution of voters over the number of voters.
The problem is that they don't have resources. Useful voter outreach costs a lot of money, and only in this election and 2008 have they really had the money to do it. Guess what? Minority turnout is way up, young voter turnout is way up, first time voter turnout is way up, people are showing up for midterms that only vote in presidential elections.
you'll notice that only one of those categories consists of non-voters or first time voters--so effectively, you've just made my point for me. they're not targeting mostly non-voters or first time voters, because that's a patently fucking stupid strategy on a number of levels. they're targeting people who actually vote but who don't normally turn out for midterms.
So you've recognized that hey, everyone (including you) has no interest in making voting more accessible or helping marginalized people feel represented. But then you conclude that it's not you,...
So you've recognized that hey, everyone (including you) has no interest in making voting more accessible or helping marginalized people feel represented. But then you conclude that it's not you, but the children who are wrong.
Your last sentence basically says: "hey, young disenfranchised voters? Go get change because I sure as fuck am not going to help because the system works great for me".
When I look at that situation, I don't see the "lazy dumb millennial who doesn't want to jump through hoops to vote for your guy" as the problem. I see the lazy, complacent voters who are fine with making the system difficult and unrepresentative because they already jumped through the hoops, as an even worse problem.
Groups of well off middle aged people sitting around complaining that broke college kids think going to the post office is a pain in the ass, but can't be assed to push their leaders to make registration easy or automatic.
But sure, the college kid who feels uninformed and disenfranchised. They're the problem.
i feel like now is a good time to point out that your entire post is basically one giant incorrect assumption and that i actually am a marginalized, young, college-aged voter with zero income who...
Groups of well off middle aged people sitting around complaining that broke college kids think going to the post office is a pain in the ass, but can't be assed to push their leaders to make registration easy or automatic.
But sure, the college kid who feels uninformed and disenfranchised. They're the problem.
i feel like now is a good time to point out that your entire post is basically one giant incorrect assumption and that i actually am a marginalized, young, college-aged voter with zero income who feels just as hopeless as the rest of these fuckers about the situation.
the difference is that, rather than falling into this stupid pit of assuming that party elites and voters who are more consistent than people my age are going to suddenly hand over the reins of policy to people like me and that if they don't we live in hellworld and what's the point in voting, i vote to make it so that they have to and that eventually they will hand it off to us and do what we want, and vote even if they won't because if i'm not voting then i'm not getting a seat at the table ever. as it happens, this strategy worked really well for my state because actually voting in candidates who intend serve your interests (even if you on some levels don't agree with them) instead of abstaining from voting completely, amazingly enough, tends to combat this disenfranchisement you talk about--colorado as a consequence has some of the most progressive voting laws in the country and this makes it so easy to vote you almost have to go out of your way to not do so.
at the end of the day at least some, if not all of the onus for change is on the voter, and if you don't want to vote then that's fine, but don't be shocked when nobody gives a shit about your opinions and your state doesn't as a consequence reflect what you want, because the main way of voicing those opinions is voting, and by abstaining from voting all you're doing is withdrawing your voice from being considered.
Fair enough, and I used you as a generalization for the prevailing attitude of the thread (and a WaPo article FFS) Responding to people talking about why they don't feel encouraged to vote with...
Fair enough, and I used you as a generalization for the prevailing attitude of the thread (and a WaPo article FFS)
Responding to people talking about why they don't feel encouraged to vote with mockery and insults just cements for them that this system isn't for them or about them. Half of the posts in the OP were talking about places where it's been deliberately made more difficult for them to vote, but the only narrative anyone cares about is "wah stupid youths lol i did it why don't they"
Liberals will read 1000 articles talking about how "economic anxiety" is why Trump voters hate minorities and vote straight Racism party line while wringing their hands about how to reach out to those people. But god forbid you try to reach out to young people about getting health care or their student loans forgiven. THOSE people are idiots and everything that happens to them is their own fault.
That's their problem that they need to realize and change. If the Democratic party inspired typically non-voters to vote with policies that actually help people, they'd be doing a lot better right...
parties go for people who vote, not people who don't.
That's their problem that they need to realize and change. If the Democratic party inspired typically non-voters to vote with policies that actually help people, they'd be doing a lot better right now.
AOC and Andrew Gillum won their primaries by getting typically non-voters to vote for them.
From your other comment:
the burden ultimately isn't on parties to reach out to people who don't vote or engage
Except it is, literally the job of political parties is to get people engaged and voting by reaching out to them and offering policies they'll like.
Democrats have lost >1000 seats starting in 2010 because they are horrible at inspiring people to vote.
this sounds a lot more like an argument for better candidates than one for better policies, and that's ultimately in the hands of voters. policy doesn't necessarily win elections. you missed the...
That's their problem that they need to realize and change. If the Democratic party inspired typically non-voters to vote with policies that actually help people, they'd be doing a lot better right now.
AOC and Andrew Gillum won their primaries by getting typically non-voters to vote for them.
this sounds a lot more like an argument for better candidates than one for better policies, and that's ultimately in the hands of voters. policy doesn't necessarily win elections.
Except it is, literally the job of political parties is to get people engaged and voting by reaching out to them and offering policies they'll like.
you missed the non-voter part. it's not the job of the party to try and turn out unreliable or non-voters when they can just turn out reliable voters and get the job done that way. non-voters have completely neutered their own power by mostly being unreliable voters.
Candidates and policy go hand in hand, progressive candidate have progressive policies, neolib candidates have neolib policy. They got typically non-voters out by having policy more progressive...
this sounds a lot more like an argument for better candidates than one for better policies
Candidates and policy go hand in hand, progressive candidate have progressive policies, neolib candidates have neolib policy. They got typically non-voters out by having policy more progressive than standard Democrats (though Gillum has made a move to the center).
when they can just turn out reliable voters and get the job done that way
Except when they can't, Democrats have been failing for years. The voters are "unreliable" because they won't reliably vote for their current policies/candidates, if the party changed their policies/candidates to appeal to those voters they will become reliable.
Vs trying to appeal to the vast market of "not racist Conservatives" who decide to vote D instead of R? Considering all of the branches of government have gone R, maybe they should re-think their...
it's not the job of the party to try and turn out unreliable or non-voters
Vs trying to appeal to the vast market of "not racist Conservatives" who decide to vote D instead of R? Considering all of the branches of government have gone R, maybe they should re-think their strategy.
I just turned 18 two weeks ago, and I've already voted. Most of my friends are voting as well. Just because these twelve are choosing to stay out of politics, doesn't mean that all young adults...
I just turned 18 two weeks ago, and I've already voted. Most of my friends are voting as well. Just because these twelve are choosing to stay out of politics, doesn't mean that all young adults are that apathetic.
A common theme seems to be I don't know who to vote for. I didn't know who to vote for last month either. Then I took 30 minutes to visit https://votesaveamerica.com and read about all of the...
A common theme seems to be I don't know who to vote for.
I didn't know who to vote for last month either. Then I took 30 minutes to visit https://votesaveamerica.com and read about all of the candidates I can vote for. I made my selections, printed off my cheat sheet, and used them to fill out my absentee ballot (which was also super easy to get, just mail in a form).
While it might be a little late now for most people, I'd suggest sharing that website (or one of the similar ones) with anyone who doesn't know who to vote for.
Also, I highly doubt that it was easier to get a Medical Marijuana card than it was to register to vote. I bet Jocelyn was just more motivated to smoke pot than to buy a stamp.
The problem, at least in my little clade, is not who to vote for as much as there are no satisfying candidates to vote for. Yes, in a purely short-term, immediate perspective, voting for the...
The problem, at least in my little clade, is not who to vote for as much as there are no satisfying candidates to vote for. Yes, in a purely short-term, immediate perspective, voting for the democratic candidate makes sense. They'll almost certainly be less outwardly evil than their opponent. But long term? This is a losing strategy. The democratic party continues to be a feckless wasteland of geriatric white men who have no convictions, courage, or even real beliefs. Why the fuck should I vote for these people? If they win this year, and they win 2020 nothing is actually going to change beyond a return to unacceptable pre-Trump status quo. And then you know what's going to happen? A Trump 2.0 is going to come along, except this time they'll be actually competent and openly fascistic. That's what your vote for the democratic party is doing, just delaying the inevitable. So yes, go vote (I did!), it'll probably do some small immediate good. But if that's going to be the extent of your political engagement don't pretend you're somehow better than non-voters, because you're not. You've both done the exact same amount to put the country onto a good track: absolutely fuck all.
I didn't say voting didn't matter, I said that voting is not sufficient. You should participate in your local primary process You should canvass for the candidate you support during the primary...
I didn't say voting didn't matter, I said that voting is not sufficient.
You should participate in your local primary process
You should canvass for the candidate you support during the primary process
You should attend town halls and demand that your representatives (at all levels, not just federal) do something instead of sitting around being useless
If your representatives continue to be useless, you should participate in or organize a campaign against them. Let everyone know how useless they are. Talk about it at city forums. Write into newspapers.
If your representatives aren't just useless but are actually evil you should feel free to publicly humiliate them and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible.
You should protest when the government, at any level, does bad things. This shouldn't be hard because governments, at all levels, are constantly doing bad things. If they don't listen, ramp it up from peaceful protest to full on civil disobedience. Refuse to acknowledge the authority of a government that does not answer to its citizens.
If your local government continues to be useless, you should join or organize an effort to act where it will not. Feed the poor, clean up the park, help your neighbors, build solidarity
Finally, vote with your wallet and don't support corporations that support evil regressive politics
That's a long, intimidating list. I agree that civic engagement should be more than voting every 4 years in presidential elections, but people have other shit going on. Constantly being involved...
That's a long, intimidating list. I agree that civic engagement should be more than voting every 4 years in presidential elections, but people have other shit going on. Constantly being involved in political action is tiring and frankly not sustainable for a lot of people. Scoffing at those who vote but can't do things like canvass is unhelpful.
I cannot believe the reaction to the article here. The publishers of this article choose 12 people and featured their uninformed opinions because in the current political climate it evokes strong...
I cannot believe the reaction to the article here.
The publishers of this article choose 12 people and featured their uninformed opinions because in the current political climate it evokes strong emotions. Just 12 young people! This borders on exercising a superiority fetish.
The rates of voting by age brackets (1984-2016) are affected by trends in such a distinctly similar pattern. Young people are still developing their sense of responsibility and building their lives then they grow more and become more and more likely to vote. To me this is plainly an acceptable, reasonably expected, and healthy behavior.
Voting rates between white and black people are extremely close from 1984 to 2016.
Yet this article features 3 white people and 11/12, in my experience, white names. I mentioned race because as well as being commented on here in a negative light, the data indicates that there is not a discernible pattern of young white people voting at rates which you should consider unexpected or controversial.
Encouraging young people to vote is a positive message in my opinion. I don't think this article accomplishes that. There's no discussion or thoughtful takeaway. Shaming people into good behavior is usually the least effective path.
Pure propaganda despite the record voter registration everywhere. They do this so when democrats and progressives lose it seems realistic. Voter disenfrachisement is rampant everywhere and it's...
Pure propaganda despite the record voter registration everywhere. They do this so when democrats and progressives lose it seems realistic. Voter disenfrachisement is rampant everywhere and it's not just one party doing it.
I don't agree with these people's views, but I find it hard to blame them. Voting is a joke. Insiders rig primaries and were left to vote for one of two options selected by billionaires. If you...
I don't agree with these people's views, but I find it hard to blame them. Voting is a joke. Insiders rig primaries and were left to vote for one of two options selected by billionaires. If you don't vote for the winning candidate your vote was meaningless. Mainly Republican legislatures weaponize big data to gerrymander us into districts that destroy our political power. Then they work as hard as they can to make voting difficult.
We need a lot of reform to make voting less of a joke, then we can cast blame on those who opt out.
To be fair the article is kinda hyperbolic, the reasons given are actually quite varied. Samantha - seems to have given up on national politics after losing once. Reese - I don't understand this...
To be fair the article is kinda hyperbolic, the reasons given are actually quite varied.
Samantha - seems to have given up on national politics after losing once.
Reese - I don't understand this guy. He studies political science but doesn't vote?
Tim - is probably going to vote despite his ADHD.
Megan - looks like systemic problems are making it difficult.
Drew - doesn't seem to be able to grasp that sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
Laura - uninformed, not willing to make the effort.
Aaron - sees the theater but not willing to compromise.
Anna - again a badly designed system is getting in the way, but she might still vote.
Thomas - seems active in grassroots efforts at least but less willing to get involved nationally.
Jocelyn - again it's hard to register and she's ill.
Maria - hates politics but still invested in some issues, lazy.
Nathan - wants voting to be social media based, terrible idea!
Not when I'm around they aren't. Any of my friends who don't vote get cut off as soon as they talk about politics in any way shape or form and are reminded that they don't get a voice because they...
They are free to remain aloof politically and whine that it is too much work to register to vote online or mail in a fucking form.
Not when I'm around they aren't. Any of my friends who don't vote get cut off as soon as they talk about politics in any way shape or form and are reminded that they don't get a voice because they have chosen to not exercise it.
I get the sentiment, and hey, it's not your individual job to take on every issue...but that seems like it isn't going to make them any more likely to vote or engage politically. I'd suggest that...
I get the sentiment, and hey, it's not your individual job to take on every issue...but that seems like it isn't going to make them any more likely to vote or engage politically. I'd suggest that instead of shutting down otherwise politically unengaged people when they try to engage with politics, you welcome them doing so and help guide them to seeing the necessity behind political action.
Yeah I said it forcefully but it's more like I point it out in a joking/playful manner. It's meant more to annoy them into action then anything else. I (and my friend group) already try to engage...
Yeah I said it forcefully but it's more like I point it out in a joking/playful manner. It's meant more to annoy them into action then anything else. I (and my friend group) already try to engage them other ways as well.
Choosing the lesser of two or more evils is literally the adult human condition. We do it every single day, all day long. But somehow in politics it’s the exception? Blechhhh. Logical discourse is...
Choosing the lesser of two or more evils is literally the adult human condition. We do it every single day, all day long.
But somehow in politics it’s the exception?
Blechhhh. Logical discourse is gone?
Edit: I feel like this is a disease of the progressive/left, globally. The right had no philosophical problem with supporting Trump. He was their candidate, lesser of their two evils, and they voted for him.
Progressives didn’t like some line items of Hillary(which I totally understand) so we stayed home. Derp... our problem is overthinking it?
It was Trump or Hillary at that point. As a progressive, I'm sure you thought Hillary was the lesser of two evils here, so by staying home you essentially voted Trump. Either you're misleading...
It was Trump or Hillary at that point. As a progressive, I'm sure you thought Hillary was the lesser of two evils here, so by staying home you essentially voted Trump. Either you're misleading yourself about being a progressive, or you didn't understand that not voting for one candidate is effectively voting for the other.
"Pick my person because they're less bad than that person, and if you feel that voting for that person conflicts with your values, eat shit and do what I want or this is all your fault" Everyone...
so by staying home you essentially voted Trump
"Pick my person because they're less bad than that person, and if you feel that voting for that person conflicts with your values, eat shit and do what I want or this is all your fault"
Everyone who voted for Hillary in the primary voted for one of the few people who could lose to Donald Trump. Are you angry at them also?
Sometimes you're left with a choice between a rock and a hard place. You're welcome to choose to dig a deeper hole if you want, but don't be surprised if other people are angry that you did that,...
eat shit and do what I want
Sometimes you're left with a choice between a rock and a hard place. You're welcome to choose to dig a deeper hole if you want, but don't be surprised if other people are angry that you did that, especially when that hole effects their lives too.
Everyone who voted for Hillary in the primary voted for one of the few people who could lose to Donald Trump. Are you angry at them also?
Yes, I am. But I'm a lot less upset with them then people who didn't even bother to turn out to vote against Trump. People who did the latter chose to be selfish. They cared more about their own personal values than the lives of millions of Americans.
Yes. That's objectively the only thing you can do. You have a few options when it comes to voting day. You can vote Republican, you can vote Democrat, you can vote for one of the small parties, or...
Pick my person because they're less bad than that person, and if you feel that voting for that person conflicts with your values, eat shit and do what I want or this is all your fault
Yes. That's objectively the only thing you can do. You have a few options when it comes to voting day. You can vote Republican, you can vote Democrat, you can vote for one of the small parties, or you can not vote. Lets say there are 6 options or so, depending on how many people got on the ballot.
Of those, voting for a small party and staying home can be immediately discarded. All they do is make your vote not count, and effectively give some portion of your vote to your least favorite of the two real candidates.
So you only actually have two real options. Vote for who you feel is the best candidate for the job, or vote for who you feel is the worst (actual) candidate for the job. That's it. Any other choice is an illusion. You can grandstand and complain about how it is unfair and horrible all day, but ultimately, all you can truly do is making one of those two choices. Vote for Trump, or vote for Hillary. If you like Trump less than Hillary, but decided not to vote in protest, you're effectively a Trump voter. I'm not saying that as a judgement call or to throw anyone's politics into question, I'm saying that from a political science standpoint, you helped Trump win the presidency. When I say there are only two actual choices, that's true in a very real way.
I think if people spent half the time engaging with WHY these people didn't want to vote for Hillary, it might actually help voter turnout. The "liberal media" wants to know why Trump voters are...
If you like Trump less than Hillary, but decided not to vote in protest, you're effectively a Trump voter.
I think if people spent half the time engaging with WHY these people didn't want to vote for Hillary, it might actually help voter turnout. The "liberal media" wants to know why Trump voters are Trump Voters with a new article every week, but for liberals who didn't vote Hillary? Wag your finger and shame them and hopefully they'll do better next time.
If some Democrats started focusing on figuring out why people didn't want to vote for Hillary and aligning their policy to be more in line with those views. But again and again, shame anyone who thinks the party should be more progressive, and olive branch to "Moderate Republicans" and change views to accommodate them.
Oh, if you mean me personally, I totally voted Hillary. Edit: I realize that my previous comment was unclear, and very poorly phrased. When I said “we progressives” I somehow meant “us” but not me.
Oh, if you mean me personally, I totally voted Hillary.
Edit: I realize that my previous comment was unclear, and very poorly phrased. When I said “we progressives” I somehow meant “us” but not me.
The right had no problem voted Trump because they LOVE Trump. The entire party has had to change to be more Trump like, because Trump is the embodiment of exactly what Republicans want. Trump's...
The right had no philosophical problem with supporting Trump. He was their candidate, lesser of their two evils, and they voted for him.
The right had no problem voted Trump because they LOVE Trump. The entire party has had to change to be more Trump like, because Trump is the embodiment of exactly what Republicans want. Trump's approval rating remains sky high with Republicans. He's not the lesser of anything - he's exactly what they want and exactly what they got. Turnout dropped because there was a minority of the party who didn't want Trump, but the vast majority got exactly who they wanted.
I just wish more people would vote for third party candidates. The whole 2 party system is just ridiculous in this day and age. Democrats and Republicans tend to agree on a lot more then they...
I just wish more people would vote for third party candidates. The whole 2 party system is just ridiculous in this day and age. Democrats and Republicans tend to agree on a lot more then they realize but for some reason they decide to repeat the same arguments over and over.
As @spctrvl says below, you really shouldn't vote for a third party candidate. Even if you vehemently oppose our voting system and the entire concept of first past the post, by voting for a third...
As @spctrvl says below, you really shouldn't vote for a third party candidate. Even if you vehemently oppose our voting system and the entire concept of first past the post, by voting for a third party you're willingly giving away your political power. Voting for candidates in primaries that want to change the system is a better idea, but you should always vote for the best of the two mainstream parties in generals. A third party will never win a major election with our current system, it's just absolutely impossible. Third parties mean well, but the entire concept is idealistic and not grounded in reality in the US.
But if a third party presidential candidate gets 5% of the popular vote they receive federal funding right? That's got to be a step in the right direction. It almost happened in 2016. Personally I...
But if a third party presidential candidate gets 5% of the popular vote they receive federal funding right? That's got to be a step in the right direction. It almost happened in 2016. Personally I think a two party system gives an illusion of choice more than anything.
Literally doesn't matter. FPTP voting means that the absolute best case scenario for the third party is that it wins, and supplants one of the old parties in a new two party system inside ten...
Literally doesn't matter. FPTP voting means that the absolute best case scenario for the third party is that it wins, and supplants one of the old parties in a new two party system inside ten years. Non-two-party electoral systems are inherently unstable with FPTP because of the spoiler effect.
The more votes a third party gets, the worse off everyone that voted for that party, and their closest ideological allies are. The better a leftist third party candidate does, the worse off...
The more votes a third party gets, the worse off everyone that voted for that party, and their closest ideological allies are. The better a leftist third party candidate does, the worse off leftists and left moderates are, unless they somehow secure all of the votes of the democratic party, which is so unlikely that it's not worth even considering.
Even if that did happen, we would just get another two party system in the next election, with different parties. It doesn't have anything to do with American culture or money in politics, or corporate influence or even corruption, which are things that normally get blamed for why we have a two establish, entrenched parties. It's simply a mathematical certainty inherit in our voting system, like how if you role a dice enough times you'll get a 6 16.66% of the time, or how in a room full of 80 people, two of them will virtually always share a birthday.
(It's a game theory problem rather than a statistics problem, but you get my point.)
It's never a smart move, and third parties gaining any sort of traction if you share their ideology isn't a step in the right direction for you, it only hurts you.
That just doesn't work unless we get rid of first past the post voting, or some third party has non-compete arrangements with one of the big two. Otherwise, voting for a third party is equivalent...
That just doesn't work unless we get rid of first past the post voting, or some third party has non-compete arrangements with one of the big two. Otherwise, voting for a third party is equivalent to voting against the mainstream party that best represents you. The reason why the US only has two viable political parties isn't some failure of the voters to engage, it's because that's the mathematical equilibrium reached by our polling system. You want to change the party structure, you have to change the system.
That's making you a prick in a conversation quite frankly. If voting changed anything it'd be illegal — old quote that still holds up. Voting does change precisely zero. You have a far right party...
That's making you a prick in a conversation quite frankly.
If voting changed anything it'd be illegal — old quote that still holds up. Voting does change precisely zero. You have a far right party and a medium right wing party. Nothing will be accomplished being one of millions and millions of people who chooses one of two shitty options.
What we need is direct action, rallies, protests, revolutions. Revolutions are the engines of history. Not voting.
Okay, let's go that route then. How about you prove to me that every vote ever held has changed absolutely nothing. That sounds like an awful daunting task, does it not? That's because it's absurd...
If voting changed anything it'd be illegal — old quote that still holds up.
Okay, let's go that route then. How about you prove to me that every vote ever held has changed absolutely nothing. That sounds like an awful daunting task, does it not? That's because it's absurd and untenable.
Do I agree that many instances of voting are just for show? Absolutely.
Do I believe that all voting in America changes nothing? Absolutely not. That's an absurd proposition.
Nothing will be accomplished being one of millions and millions of people who chooses one of two shitty options.
Voting can let those parties know what direction to take. They might resist the change, but ultimately their party base will decide this direction - this is evident by the change of these parties over time.
What we need is direct action, rallies, protests, revolutions. Revolutions are the engines of history.
I agree, but how many people participate in these and don't vote? We're talking about getting people who have given up on politics here.
On the other hand: If voting changed nothing, the people in power wouldn't waste their time making it so difficult for certain classes of people to vote. (See: voter purge in Georgia, voter ID...
If voting changed anything it'd be illegal — old quote that still holds up. Voting does change precisely zero.
On the other hand: If voting changed nothing, the people in power wouldn't waste their time making it so difficult for certain classes of people to vote.
(See: voter purge in Georgia, voter ID laws disenfranchising Native Americans in North Dakota and other minorities elsewhere, and many other examples of oppressive voter registration rules cited in this thread.)
Tell that to all the people who've had their children kidnapped and put in cages by the Trump administration, or the transgender people who've been stripped of right after right, or the woman who...
Voting does change precisely zero. You have a far right party and a medium right wing party. Nothing will be accomplished being one of millions and millions of people who chooses one of two shitty options.
Tell that to all the people who've had their children kidnapped and put in cages by the Trump administration, or the transgender people who've been stripped of right after right, or the woman who watched her rapist get put on the supreme court, or those suckers who share a planet with a United States government hell bent on making it unfit for human life.
Like, I'm as left as they come, and I get that the Democrats suck, but this isn't a game. Elections have consequences, as I thought was made obvious by 2000, 2004, 2010, 2014, or at the very least 2016. If we don't get the republicans out of government sooner rather than later, they're going to do irreparable damage to the planet, not to mention the people still living on it. Building socialism in the midst of an ecological collapse or fascist dictatorship is gonna be a bitch. Revolution and direct action are all well and good, but voting takes ten minutes every year or two, so even if you don't think it's an effective way to promote change, please do me and everyone else on the planet a favor and do it.
Do you really think that if we elected Gore in 2000 (FL election fraud notwithstanding), we would have spent 16 years at war? You say voting changes nothing, but ~4500 Americans, and half a...
Do you really think that if we elected Gore in 2000 (FL election fraud notwithstanding), we would have spent 16 years at war? You say voting changes nothing, but ~4500 Americans, and half a million Iraqis would most likely still be alive today if a few hundred people voted differently.
Your line is one of those that sounds pithy and common sense at first glance, but if you really look at it, we could have saved a great deal of suffering over the years simply by people casting ballots differently. If that doesn't count as changing something, what does?
Here in Turkey voting is compulsory, and is regarded as a main responsibility of any citizen that can vote (18 yrs old or older, not a soldier or a student in a military school, a couple other...
Here in Turkey voting is compulsory, and is regarded as a main responsibility of any citizen that can vote (18 yrs old or older, not a soldier or a student in a military school, a couple other small things). There is a fine of TRY22 (around $3) if you don't vote, but usually ignored by the authorities. Though you can cast a blank vote. Turnout is always ~%75-85.
Edit: In addition, there's no friction too, you're registered automatically, just vote on the election day until 17:00.
2016 was also her first time voting. If you're disillusioned after a single election cycle, boy do I have bad news for you. Reality is disillusioning, but we can't just sit on the sidelines and...
2016 was also her first time voting. If you're disillusioned after a single election cycle, boy do I have bad news for you. Reality is disillusioning, but we can't just sit on the sidelines and ignore it.
What a joke of a system where this is even a possible thing to do. In most countries going to vote is much less difficult than paying the fine for not voting.
"voting and registering is just too harrrrd."
What a joke of a system where this is even a possible thing to do. In most countries going to vote is much less difficult than paying the fine for not voting.
Ignore that almost every one of them had a common refrain about their political beliefs, and just make a mocking article about those darn millennial kids these days. Then wring your hands about...
Ignore that almost every one of them had a common refrain about their political beliefs, and just make a mocking article about those darn millennial kids these days. Then wring your hands about why youth voter engagement is so low, and mock them some more.
I read this as actually mocking the Intelligencer piece more than Millenials honestly. I'm a quintessential millenial and I truly don't find caricatures like that insulting at all. At least among...
I read this as actually mocking the Intelligencer piece more than Millenials honestly. I'm a quintessential millenial and I truly don't find caricatures like that insulting at all. At least among my group of friends, I find we lean into them. If I make anything with an avocado you can be SURE my boyfriend is going to make a crack about us not living in a house. We tell people we can't get married because we have to kill the diamond industry, and that even though we honestly work ridiculous hours we are obviously THE laziest most entitled brats on the planet.
Now I understand how we've been berated with this shit for at least the past decade minus the sarcasm, and that it is really affecting people our age. However; I find articles like the OP far more harmful and reinforcing of negative stereotypes than a satirical piece posted here.
I'm sorry but these people are absolutely insane. These are such weirdly entitled and lazy ways to look at the world. I'm not sure if it was the goal of this article to paint Gen-X and millennials as idiots, but as a millennial, I feel embarrassed. I agree that registering to vote could be easier but it is no way as impossible as these people are making it out to be. Some voters have actual excuses for not being able to register but they seemed to pick a bunch of people who just couldn't be bothered to take 20 minutes and fill out online forms.
I mean we're talking about people who are choosing not to vote. Does it really surprise you that many of them have what we would consider, shitty excuses?
This whole article is a perfect example of why voting should be opt-out not opt-in. Registration should be automatic and tied to something else we do as citizens - payroll, DMV, government benefits, etc. We should automatically send absentee ballots to everyone's home in case they can't make it out to the polls (or don't want to) for any reason.
I think we need better voters and not necessarily more voters. If you consider how democracy works to solve difficult questions - most people don't know the answer and are evenly distributed among options while some do know the answer and are entirely concentrated on the correct answer, by increasing the number of voters we potentially increase the noise in the system. If there's too much noise then the people who know what they are talking about are drowned out by those that don't.
If you don't follow politics, don't understand the issues, don't know the candidates, then you're actually helping by not voting.
Do you have proof that this is a problem anywhere where voting is mandatory or opt-out?
While I understand the logic behind your thoughts on this hypothesis, I don't agree with it.
Proof is a high bar for the subject. I don't have any. It's also difficult to assess the quality of electoral results, so it's hard to say "Here's an educated electorate making usually good decisions versus an uneducated electorate making worse decisions."
What I can offer is thought experiments. Suppose that every voter had to take a simple test associating positions with candidates and positions with anticipated outcomes issued by experts. In other words, voters have to demonstrate political knowledge to vote. Is Donald Trump President in this world? Are politics better or worse?
Only ~15% of people could reliably pass that test according to the studies quoted in Democracy for Realists.
There is no such thing as an educated electorate because the opportunity cost is too high to becoming an educated voter.
I'd be fine with restricting voting to the most informed 15%. Why not? Why should people who don't know what they are talking about have an equal say in democracy?
Imagine we were watching a technician defuse a nuclear bomb in the middle of LA. In the group watching, there you, and me, and 73 random people. In this group there's also 15 bomb defusal experts. Now, nobody knows exactly how to advise the technician because nobody has done this before so I say "I think the bomb defusal experts should talk this through and figure out what to do." Is your position that us random people should get equal say in the decision as the experts?
Politics is really complicated and really important and I have a really hard time believing that most people know enough about the issues to cast meaningful votes.
If I could design a test for voters I'd require that every law passed come with Key Performance Indicators. If you're writing a bill to help poverty you should be able to specify measurements that will mean your bill is successful or not, people helped, cost, etc. With the indicators you also have targets.
Potential voters, meanwhile, after each policy is accepted get a chance to register a prediction as to whether the targets will be met or not. As the time to vote approaches only voters who had a high accuracy in making predictions over the past few years would get to cast a vote. These people could presumably tell what certain policies would likely mean for the world.
So you want to turn voting into a game show.
I'd rather say that I want voters to be informed about the policies and have a good track record or predicting policy outcomes.
Based on who's standards? You want to devise some sort of standardized test for voting success and eliminate anyone who doesn't pass your standardized test?
Earlier I described how I'd make the test. Every law or policy has metrics and goals associated with it. When a law is passed there is a window of time for potential voters to predict whether the law or policy will meet the goals or not within a time frame. On election time only potential voters who have made X predictions with Y accuracy get to vote.
There are mathematical ways to score predictors better than simple averages to account for the fact that some policies may be trivially easy to predict and those should be adopted. Voters could also be restricted to the top ~10% of predictors instead of just people who met a certain floor - that way competition would constantly be driving people to understand policies better.
Except laws have various positive and negative effects and different people have different opinions on the idea of success. Defining metrics of success depends on the person. Person 1 defines success as less spend. Person 2 defines success as better outcomes in the topic. Who's right?
Laws are very complicated and often have unintended consequences. Gamifying lawmaking and making the stakes your right to participate in a representative democracy is insanity.
No, I mean that the people who pass the law must encode with the law the metrics of success. If your law is looking to reduce poverty you need some measurements to show your law is or isn't working as intended. Those measurements can be whatever the lawmakers involved think is important.
The metrics will have their own benefit as it will help law makers understand and consider the effects of their actions as they think about how they will measure them and what they want to achieve exactly. The side benefit is that they can be used to measure how well citizens can predict the outcome of policies. Letting people vote on politicians to make policies when the voters don't know what the policies are or what they'll do is insanity.
I think you would have an extremely hard time with consent of the *governed in this system.
edit: conference, governed, what's the difference? :D
I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the term "consent of the conference".
Probably an autocorrect mistake for "consent of the governed".
If that's the case I don't think consent of the governed is that important. In the US that's not really happening - less than half of people vote (138 million voters out of 325 million people). Is this indicative of consent of the governed? Fewer people vote in midterm elections. Laws are ruled on, ultimately, by unelected Justices on the Supreme Court. Career bureaucrats in regulatory agencies make regulations with the force of law that most people are entirely ignorant of. The current President was elected by fewer voters than his opponent had - and again, there were more people who didn't even vote.
There isn't really a way that the US has the consent of the governed now. I don't consent to this style of leadership for example even though I'm allowed to vote.
Even when people vote it isn't really consent as we don't vote on policies but on people to carry out and advocate those policies. One reason I supported Obama over McCain was that I thought we needed fewer wars in the Middle East, less of a drug war, socialized healthcare, and to massively curtail the influence of our intelligence agencies. I felt like Obama was closer to me on all those issues, but I also don't feel like he delivered what I wanted - so how does he have my consent to take office and not do the things I wanted?
Out of the whole population, most don't vote, there goes consent of the governed right there. Of those that do vote about half vote for the outcome that doesn't happen. Of the half that voted and the half of that that voted for the thing that happened actually get what they want and expected?
My system would have "consent of the governed" in a similar way. Anybody could vote if they only qualify be demonstrating that they understand policies and their likely results and they pay attention to public policies. Then, presumably, we would have people picking policies that would probably lead to good things.
If? We're here right now and the problem is the sane people who stay at home in apathy. The batshit crazy makes plenty of noise as we speak.
Jesus, how lazy can you get? Millennials and gen-Z have grown up with instant access to just about any radio station, newspaper, and TV channel they want. It's like someone asked a boomer everything they dislike about millennials and went looking for people that match stereotypes for this article.
Maybe that's the point. The reporter went looking and this sums up all they found.
Not every state has online registration.
most states do, though, and only 3 people featured in this article would have been unable to register online (the New Jersey, Texas, and Arkansas possible voters)
In Texas, you can just tick a box on your driver's license form to register. That's it.
Here in Florida they just asked me if I wanted to register and what party I wanted to be affiliated with (Closed primaries) when I transferred my license. I wasn't even 18 yet.
Two of the quotes in the parent comment are of people from Texas. One of which is in New York, presumably at college since it says she's trying to register in her hometown, so getting registered means mailing something to Texas, quite possibly her first time mailing anything ever.
She also said
Her case is exactly what I had to go through to update my address on my registration. Fill out the change of address, mail it in (which means buying stamps and an envelope because who has that on them), then refresh the same shitty website for a week until I see it's been processed.
Or what about Jocelyn in Massachusetts? Sure Massachusetts has online registration, but only for people with a driver's license, so Jocelyn has to go through the same mail in process.
I would understand if she was 10 and this was 1960. You can just google "how to mail something" though. It's really not very difficult. I mean, if you offered any of the people in this article 100 bucks if they voted, there's no doubt in my mind they'd brave the "small outdated website", and figure out the dark, arcane incantations needed to mail something pretty quickly.
Voting for the right candidates would absolutely have more of an impact than 100 dollars over the course of their terms as it is though. I think the only actual reason none of them voted is because they don't view it as important enough. Despite what they say, for a young, middle class person, voting is not difficult barring a few extremely rare circumstances.
Polarization, even within a party. I don't have any words for how ridiculously stupid this sentiment is. Of course Bernie supported Hilary Clinton; they are in the same party. They weren't opponents; they were figuring out who the leader of their team was.
This entire article just made me angry, but nobody made me angrier than Aaron, who provided the quote above.
Leadership races (even elections themselves) haven't always been primarily focused on slagging off your opponents, and I don't think that the race between Sanders and Clinton was particularly vitriolic between the two. Also, I'm confident that it's not just that they're pretending to support each other; Sanders' ideals are certainly much more aligned with the Democrats than the Republicans, so it should come as zero surprise whatsoever that he supports the Democratic nominee, because that is who he is and what he supports.
Sanders and Clinton were never enemies, and this deep seated need for polarization that people seem to have is systemically driving everyone apart when there is absolutely no need to do so.
It's worth noting that sowing discord between Democrats, particularly by getting Bernie supporters to go against Hillary, was a primary tactic of the disinformation campaign back in 2016.
I remember going on reddit prior to the election and seeing a lot of people talking about how they were going to vote for Bernie but switched their pick to Trump after Hillary won the nomination. At the time I remember thinking that position was absurd given the policy and platform differences between Bernie and Trump, but I attributed a lot of it to sour grapes. It was the only explanation that made sense to me at the time. Knowing what we know now, I wonder how many of them were simply external influencers, lying in order to shift the opinions of actual US voters.
To some extent the primaries are a vetting process, or at least they're supposed to be. Hopefully by the time the general rolls around there's no surprises left and you're way out ahead of anything negative, but obviously it doesn't always work out that way.
I think at least some of the problem here could be how much incentive the media has to present a primary as divisive, and how necessary it is to earn media in a primary.
Why do you think they're pretending? There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Bernie supported Hillary fully during the general elections. He obviously still thought he would be a better candidate, but he wasn't running. There were two choices for him. Help Hillary, or hurt Hillary. That's all he could do. He obviously agrees with Hillary far more than he does Trump, so why wouldn't he support her?
The same goes for all of Trump's primary opponents. They may not like the guy personally, but his views align with theirs closer than Hillary's do. They obviously support the guy.
The thing that makes it even worse is he's from Georgia, where we having the closest gubernatorial race in the country. His vote, along with everyone else's in this state really, really matters.
It's really bizarre how some people suddenly hated Sanders after he endorsed Clinton. It's either Trump or Clinton, so of course he's going to have to endorse Clinton. I believe he even said he'd endorse whoever the Democratic nominee would be. If he didn't endorse her, we'd have gotten many more Sanders -> Trump voters and Clinton would have lost more badly.
People who for a long time felt unrepresented by either party, to the point of strongly not liking the leading candidates for either party, were excited to finally have a candidate who preached values they liked. Having that candidate turn around and endorse someone who's values were far off from what they were was frustrating.
Those people were paying attention. All of "those" people that I know in real life and proclaim on the internet to support him like his honesty and sincerity. Bernie said at the very beginning of the primary process that he was going to endorse whoever the Democratic candidate turned out to be. He made it quite clear what his intentions were. Do those people want Bernie to lie or were they not paying attention?
They are not in the same party. Bernie is a progressive independent, Clinton is a neoliberal Democrat.
Voting for Clinton would be like a UK Labour member voting LibDem.
Neolibs suck and don't deserve any progressive votes.
You want those people to vote you should put up a progressive, that is the only way to effectively oppose Republicans.
I understand the point that you're trying to raise here, but it's important to understand that they are in the same party.
At the point that Sanders endorsed Clinton, he had three real options:
Anything other than "Endorse Clinton" would have been a scathing rebuke from a leader within the Democratic party, and effectively would have been endorsing Trump. In hindsight, that wouldn't have mattered (a loss is a loss) but at the time, the only real path forward for Sanders was to endorse the nominee, whomever it was, of his party. Similarly, I expect Clinton, a consummate politician, would have endorsed Sanders had he won.
Talking about their differences is important during the primaries, but when the primaries are over, you're categorically incorrect; they are in the same party, and they need to support each other.
Bernie is an independent, him caucusing with Dems is akin to a coalition. They are not in the same party.
Even if they were there is a clear ideological divide (again, like Labour vs. LibDem), and the only reason they are both aligned to the Democratic party in some way is because of our shitty FPTP system.
Supporting neolibs does progressives no good. Neolibs will backstab progressives every chance they get.
For the purpose of the election, they most certainly were in the same party; Sanders was campaigning for the Democratic nomination.
While I 100% agree, I think the idealogical divide between Sanders and Clinton was dwarfed by the idealogical divide between Sanders and Trump.
Sigh. Look, I downright loath neoliberalism. I hold the opinion that neoliberalism laid the foundation for much of the political and economic strife in the Western world that we see today.
But Hillary is not a neoliberal, she is just a plain old left-wing liberal (actual meaning of words used here, not stupid US definitions). Yeah, many Democrats - Hillary included - have been far too nice to actual neoliberals. That economic philosophy should be entirely rebuked by now, but Democrats have been far too keen on compromise and being centrists.
I agree that actual neoliberals should be opposed at every turn. But actual neoliberals that have been Democrats are people like that flaming shitbag Joe Lieberman, not Hillary.
No, Hillary is not left-wing, she is neoliberal through and through. She loves neoliberal pro-business policies like NAFTA, the TPP (until it became unpopular to like it), fracking, "affordable" healthcare (as opposed to government funded healthcare), etc.
"Left-wing liberal" is pretty much an oxymoron, liberals are center-left at best.
That's exactly what Hillary is though. A left-wing liberal. Center-left (not much, but still left of center).
Neoliberalism's hallmark policies are deregulation, privatization, and austerity - i.e. fellating the free-market. Those are not policies that Hillary champions. She is not a neoliberal.
NAFTA and the TPP at their core are not bad policies. They just need to be paired with taxes levied on the big winners to take care of the big losers in those trade deals. Trade deals are generally good things, but only if they are fair to both business AND LABOR on both sides of the deals. NAFTA wasn't good at this and the TPP wasn't great either. Not passing the TPP though will have bad effects on the US in general, which sucks because it wasn't far off from being a decent trade deal (provided it was coupled with proper taxation of the winners domestically). It wasn't though and I have mixed feelings about it going down, but that's neither here nor there.
Please realize that I basically straddle the line between Democratic Socialist and Social Democrat so it's not like you're talking to some centrist.
Bill Clinton was very big on deregulation, and based on Googling around: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/09/22/hilary-clinton-deregulation-dodd-frank-glass-steagall-banks/72616930/ I can't find anything to support that Hillary was the opposite. She never seemed to make it a point to talk about regulating the various monopolies, and doing so would directly oppose bills signed in the 1990s by her husband, so it doesn't seem that far fetched.
Why people have to be emotional in all aspects of their lives? It makes sense to be emotional when you choose someone to marry with: you should 100% love this person. But, in politics, choosing the lesser of two evils can be the most important thing you ever do.
Are you fucking kidding me with this.
You can blame the individual all you want because "look, it's so easy", but it's pretty obvious this kind of thing is a systemic problem with education.
But don't individuals make up the education system?
We need good teachers first and foremost. Ones who aren't afraid to deviate a bit from the cookie cutter curriculums being handed down to them .
I see this is emblematic of just how awful our public education system has become (and no, I'm not here to shill charter schools). American children spend TWELVE YEARS in public education and are graduating with no understanding whatsoever about the most fundamental aspects of civic life. Not knowing how to use the mail!?!? Not knowing what the three branches of government are, not knowing the Bill of Rights, not understanding the importance of the vote.
As stupid, naive, and privileged as these kids sound, its not their fault. Their educational institutions utterly failed them - perhaps by design.
Not perhaps. Definitely.
History and civics are not prioritized in modern American education. They were hardly a focus when I was a student, but the increased accountability brought on by NCLB and standardized testing has all but gutted social studies as a subject. Here's a study from 2012 (PDF link) that surveyed a thousand teachers.
Some findings:
Why is this happening? Well, it's fairly simple: most states don't test in social studies. Furthermore, if they do, those scores are often not weighted nearly as heavily as those in math and English.
Anecdotally speaking, I have worked in districts where the elementary schools would nearly eliminate social studies and science classes in favor of more time on ELA and math. The students would still have those classes on their schedule but a common occurrence was that they "wouldn't have time" to start them because they were too busy with the other subjects. This was passively, if not actively, encouraged by administration because ELA and math are the tested subjects, so they were the priority.
So is this a fault of the teachers? Or even the principals? I'm biased (I'm a teacher), but I'm going to go with no. Education is pretty transparently set up to fail. Students are asked to do too much, too quickly, and there is no contingency plan for any student who falls behind. The standards assume all students are high-level learners who maximize their learning capacity all day, every day, for twelve years. They are idealized. They assume perfection. It's a fool's errand.
I was talking with a principal one time, and she was on a bit of a rant about how her first grade teachers weren't getting through the required curriculum. She shared how she basically had to threaten the teachers with reprimands in order to get them to move on to new concepts in the curriculum, rather than staying on old ones that the students hadn't mastered yet. Mind you, the principal wasn't an evil dictator: she was legitimately was doing what she thought was in the students' best interest. She felt that the students all at least needed to see everything that first grade had to offer, lest they start out second grade with gaps.
On the other hand, her teachers had a point too: why should they move to a new concept when the students weren't proficient with the previous one? In math, which is particularly hierarchical, mastery of certain skills is prerequisite to others. They felt that their students needed more time to practice. After all, if they didn't master it now, while it was being taught, how were the students going to pick it up when they weren't teaching it?
There are no villains here. The principal was doing what she thought was best. The teachers were doing what they thought were best. The students were undoubtedly working their asses off, in first grade, to learn everything they were supposed to. So what's the problem? The setup in the first place. The villain is the idea that students are falling behind as early as first grade.
The culture of accountability in education has created a system that is designed to fail. It demands success but sets the parameters so high that we will never, ever reach them. It puts America's children on a treadmill, sets the pace too fast, and then tells teachers we're failing our kids every time they stumble. Those teachers who are dropping history to teach ELA and math? They're not doing it because they don't like history or don't think it's valuable. They're doing it because they're tired of watching kids trip and fall on their runs through ELA and math, and "history" is one of the only times they can find in their day to help them back up.
From my experience teaching college students, and remembering my own education, a big part of the issue is that civics classes are taught to students that are too young. I was in one of the nominally-best public school systems in the country, and was certainly taught civics pretty thoroughly, but that was in 7th grade. And it's a rare 7th grader that actually cares how the government works!
What'd be nice is a requirement that any university which receives public money (even in the form of student loans or research group grants) have four units of civics education as a graduation requirement. That's not to say the average 18-22 cares how the government works either, but they certainly have more reason to care than a middle schooler.
I forgot to mention this, but from my experience - anecdotally of course - we didn't even have a civics class. I'm not even sure if one was available as an elective. The only civics education we got was at best a few weeks crammed into history / social studies as an afterthought.
I was fortunate enough to have the cool teacher who told us not to talk to cops and walked us through how the bill of rights protects us - but I am certain that was the exception to the norm.
Hell, half of the history we learned was in English class reading literature about the Holocaust. At least they managed to hammer that lesson in thoroughly.
Which class taught you how to use the mail? Social studies? The same one that taught how to use a rotary phone and a VCR tape rewinder?
Was it in a year that started with 20?
It literally was, because email wasn't in every household yet and people who weren't checking for bills had a reason to check the mailbox.
Same. Before the Internet, we had pen-pals. This is like second/third grade in the mid-90s. I was a shitty pen-pal, but at least I learned how to mail a damn envelope.
Amen.
I'm curious how they selected this sample, it seems to have a lot more people who have rejected electoral politics than my (admittedly anecdotal) experience would suggest.
If you don't like what they stand for, why not get involved or vote for the candidate that does?
I think the electoral system is broken as fuck but that will never stop me from voicing myself with a vote. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy if you don't.
Several people in the article are doing exactly that.
And to ward off anyone criticizing me I will be voting, at least for any position that has a non-zero chance of republican victory.
Ah okay it was confusing because of the last line you included in the quote
The rest I agree with, but I definitely do still see the point in voting.
There aren't any candidates to vote for. Most of them lose primaries to some ancient incumbent Democrat who is one comment about the migrant caravan away from being a Republican at worst, and basically Chuck "restaurant confrontations are just as bad as mail bombs" Schumer at best.
Once you get to the general if there isn't a progressive on the ballot there's no point.
That's just wholly untrue.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is a fact of our voting system and is called being an adult. Every greater evil you put into office by doing nothing makes it that much harder for people who don't suck to get into office and actually accomplish some good while they are there.
The "lesser of two evils" system is why Democrats are so shit in the first place. They'd much rather be a lesser evil than a force for good, and by voting for them we allow that.
The alternative to voting for Democrats is letting the greater evil win. The greater evil won in 2016 and we're all suffering for it.
So the solution is clearly double down on a centrist Republican lite, since that's been working great. The answer is never to move towards what the voting base is saying they want.
Lets go ahead and compare the last several presidents - republican and democrat...
Democrats:
Republican:
If we look at president rankings by historians, it's pretty clear that recent democratic presidents just tend to do a better job.
So yeah, I disagree. I think you're being selfish by considering your own values more important than the progress of the united states and the well being of its millions of inhabitants.
I meant more as it's been "working great" in that Republicans currently dominate all three branches of government. Centrist Democrats keep losing, keep thinking the solution is to be more conservative and then losing again. Or winning and agreeing that we should get rid of birthright citizenship which isn't really a win.
Obviously Republican presidents are doing a shittier job. Despite the terrible job that so many Republicans are doing, Democrats keep fucking losing to them by trying to never take a stance on anything and being as moderate as possible in hopes that the single issue "I hate Mexicans" voter will change his mind and go Democrat. God forbid they tried to cater to a progressive voter who wants health care.
While I agree, we're talking about voting (or more specifically, not voting) for the president here, and choosing one party over the other as a "lesser of two evils" situation.
The ONLY way to get rid of the lesser of two evils voting is to change the voting system. And that pretty much necessitates a constitutional amendment. You must have the backing of one of the major parties to even have a shot at doing what you want/need to do. There is only one party that would even begin to consider such legislation and it isn't the Republicans.
So you can either make it easier for Republicans and assholes like Trump and McConnell to win, or you can join me in changing the Democratic party from the ground up.
You're not punishing the Democrats by not voting for them, you're punishing yourself and the rest of us. Yes I hate the system just like you do, but until the system gets reformed you have to work inside of it. Sitting on the sidelines only fucks people like me who have similar aims to your own and yourself.
No, there are zero parties that would even begin to consider such legislation. Not even the most prominent progressives (like Bernie) have even mentioned something like instant runoff voting. And the lesser evil type Democrats would never be for it because they benefit from the lesser of two evils system.
I would happily do so if there were any progressives on my primary ballot, but there weren't. If I were in the district of someone like AOC or Randy Bryce I'd be excited to vote for them.
C'mon. That false equivalence isn't true: http://www.sunjournal.com/stark-divide-on-ranked-choice-voting/
Voting is not the only thing you need to do if you want change. It means getting involved in your local party and changing it as well.
One state and a couple cities (like San Francisco) is barely anything. No Democrat is calling for federally mandated IRV.
Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of rich fucks want to listen to some kid (relatively) talk about instant runoff voting and giving up their healthcare lobby money by passing Medicare for All.
....Yet.
I mean, that's how you enact real change, by changing the politico's minds.
Considering all of the empathy and understanding to different world experiences people have had while mocking the non voters in this thread, surely the majorities in those parties are open and willing to change!
I mean, I'm one of those people and I actually interact with the ones you are decrying right here.
Yeah, you'll get mocked for not voting, because that's essentially denying reality. Just because you want something to be true or different doesn't mean it is. It's like being the political theory equivalent of an anti-vaxxer, the research proves you wrong, but you want so desperately to be something different because you don't like the inevitable conclusions that arise from reality.
You're also not going to receive a favorable reaction from people who are involved and treat voting seriously when you tell them that you reject that very thing.
For all of the "voting is serious business" in this thread, almost nobody has treated it like a priority to make voting easier or solve the problems listed in the original article. It's lots of "dumb kids these days going to the post office isn't hard" instead of questioning why the process is even a little difficult in the first place. If everyone cared about increasing participation as much as it seems, we'd see suggestions on how to solve the problems listed in the article. But instead everyone just wants to mock them and say their problems aren't valid or they're not a good enough reason to complain.
Almost nobody? You mean like the majority of Democratically controlled states? The Democratic party across this country is trying to push various forms of same day voter registration, expansions of voting days, automatic voter registration, vote-by-mail initiatives and similar.
I don't buy your reasoning or your stance, I'm sorry. It just seems like another version of "both sides are the same".
Hard Truth: The only way you're going to see solutions to these issues is with Democratically controlled governments (state and federal). Many of the complaints are valid, but they are not going to be solved by complaining about it on the internet or on the news, they will be solved by people caring enough to look at who may be advancing solutions to their issues right this very second (lots of Democrats).
Almost nobody in this thread. They're all competing to bitch about youths these days. I'm well aware that in places with Democratic leadership things are being done about the problem, because thankfully not everyone shares the "Stupid kids need to bootstrap it up" attitude that is prevailing in this discussion.
It's just disheartening seeing lots of pretty valid complaints from disillusioned young voters being chalked up to "These dumb lazy kids need to shut up and do their civic duty" and that's it.
I think it's more likely that the Democrats are shit because a huge portion of left wingers just don't fucking vote, and haven't for decades, so the party chases more likely voters in the center.
There is not much evidence that there is a significant portion of voters that "swing" based on wanting centrist policy. Swing voters exist, but they largely vote based on candidate charisma and their own emotions, not policy.
The entire "going after the centrist vote" is based on a very flawed and incorrect assumption about the makeup of the electorate and the characteristics of the average "swing" voter. It's a theory that doesn't hold up to reality, electoral outcomes, because it makes very wrong assumptions upfront. How the Democratic party hasn't figured this out after two decades of that model failing, I don't know (it's probably $$$ related).
All those left wingers not voting for Bernie in 2016...
Left wingers don't vote because there are no left wing candidates. If they wanted left wing votes (they don't) they would run left wing candidates.
The point was to not have Trump in office, and it appears you and many others missed it.
I did my best towards that point by voting for the only candidate that could beat him. The Democratic party had other ideas.
And in the end that candidate lost, and rather than keeping Trump out of office, you made it easier for him to win by throwing your vote away.
Interesting how no one in this thread has quoted Thomas:
Emphasis mine.
The Democratic party would learn a lot if they listened to people like Thomas. Offer better candidates and solutions past "just vote and it will all get better".
Edit: listen to Drew as well:
I am surprised I had to go this far down the thread to find a post like this. A whole lot of these people are saying they don't feel inspired to vote because they don't think any candidates represent their interests. Like over and over the refrain is "We want a candidate who represents policies we agree with" and we've got a whole thread here with dozens of replies bitching about lazy kids these days.
Just post after post above here saying oh these darn lazy kids don't even know how to use a post office! And completely ignoring everything else.
Nevermind that voter registration shouldn't even be a thought - anyone who complains about it being hard for them, they're an entitled lazy brat. Sure they have a social security card and a driver's license and the government knows where to get their tax money - but oh no, it's impossible that the government could automatically register everyone and not place artificial barriers. Let's blame all the people complaining about the barriers instead of removing them.
And also everyone apparently is bound and determined to just completely ignore the fact that young people want someone who isn't a Right of Center corporate stooge as the alternative to literal fascists.
they're not going to get that if they don't engage in the process though. parties go for people who vote, not people who don't. if you don't vote or engage or participate, you can't complain when parties don't reflect what you want. refusing/not bothering to vote is for that reason alone kinda stupid.
Which means it will always be heavily biased towards conservative retirees since they're the ones that have nothing but free time.
Why is that? We have a system designed to shove people into either conservative or extremely conservative, and you think it's the fault of people who feel unrepresented for not sucking it up and voting for one for you?
This entire attitude is a major part of the problem - you see evidence of people who feel disenfranchised by the system, and all anyone wants to do is complain about the people who are disenfranchised not participating in the system right. This COULD be a thread full of people saying "What policies will help young people feel more engaged and encourage them to be part of the process?" Instead it's a thread full of "Stupid kids, aren't bothering to vote for people I like. Dumbasses should get with the system and do what I do. Their complaints aren't valid and they should just suck it up."
Shockingly, when you read an article with a dozen kids sharing their concerns (many of which could be easily addressed) and your takeaway is to mock them and call them stupid, those people don't feel encouraged by you to participate.
yeah, pretty much? the system sucks, my guy, but until people rise over it and replace it, if you want shit to change you're gonna have to work within it. refusing to vote just neuters your voice. nobody gives a shit what you think if you're not voting, engaging, etc.
they can't get their policies if they don't vote or engage. the burden ultimately isn't on parties to reach out to people who don't vote or engage.
honestly? that's their loss then. like i said, don't engage? you can't expect to be reflected in the party. that's just the reality of the system. i'm pretty left leaning and even i recognize that. the system has no interest in changing itself. you have to be the change if you want change to happen, and you can only do that if you vote or engage ultimately.
This is horrifically bad political strategy. The most successful GOTV efforts are the ones who turn non-voters into voters.
All in all, I think both of you (edward and you) are wrong. It's both the party's and the voter's responsibilities. The Democratic party has stupidly been ignoring their duty for a while, but so have a ton of voters on the left.
i don't think it is, honestly. i think there's actually a case to be made that the best--not necessarily the most successful, since in my mind successful means it did its job which is get enough people out to win--GOTV operations would never have to rely on more than a handful of non-voters in the first place; rather, those operations would seek to turn out as many leaning or likely voters of a similar ideological bent as possible.
now of course on some level it's necessary to reach out to non-voters, but non-voters take a lot of money and effort to push into the column of even possible voters, much less likely voters, partially because non-voters are non-voters for a reason and partially because it's hard to know how to reach out to them in the first place. there's a reason why political independents, and not non-voters loom so large in american politics--it's easier, less expensive, and more productive to get people who vote out than it is to get people who don't out. you can see this in action a lot in campaigning; very, very few campaigns make it any more than a minor priority to get out non-voters or unlikely voters. the ones that do make it a significant priority, like beto o'rourke's big campaign in texas, or AOC's earlier primary campaign are either doing it because they have the money or because they literally need those unlikely voters to turn out to score a win in the first place.
really, i think the only way that GOTV campaigns that turn out non-voters are objectively any better than GOTV campaigns which don't and are based in getting out ideologically similar people is in their ability to create long-term voters--but that's kind of a crapshoot, so.
The basis for your entire premise has been torpedoed for the last two decades, yet you refuse to give it up. If appealing to mythical "independents" and swing-voters actually worked, the Democrats would crush every single election.
There is plenty of data to show that the majority of swing voters are not ideologically motivated. They vote based on the relative charisma (likability, "have a beer with") of the candidates and their own feelings at the time, which aren't policy driven. The reason they loom so large in American politics is based on a bunch of people making the same incorrect and misleading assumptions about the American electorate; that they are essentially "centrists", and then the Democrats make really, really shitty electoral strategy off of that. This very common mistake, oddly also coincidentally empowers business interests and results in significantly more business friendly policy.
There is a reason why field operations are so effective, they have the biggest effect/$ spent and they are basically the only method that registers and ability to turn a non-voter or an unlikely-voter into a voter.
these "mythical independents" you're currently deriding are an increasingly large portion of the voting base and are the main basis by which democrats are on track to win by eight or nine points this year in the house and could potentially pull off a coup in the senate.
if you want to talk a bad electoral strategy, not appealing to independents and swing voters is a bad electoral strategy. independents are thirty percent of the electorate and have been for decades, and young voters who do actually vote increasingly do not register with the big two parties. have fun trying to win elections when you completely give up on the fastest growing group of political voters in the country in favor of a get out to vote campaign aimed at people who don't even consistently vote to begin. you'll probably find that you'll spend more money for a worse result. if getting non-voters out to vote was a good strategy for most campaigns, it'd already be the standard--but it's not. like i said before, the only campaigns which make it a big part of their strategy? the ones that literally need it to win, and have no other options. campaigns aren't stupid. they have more resources and access to data than any of us fuckers. if it was a strategy they knew would be more effective than what they have, they'd already be doing it on a widespread basis.
Two problems with your assumptions:
Are those people voting on policy? No. They are voting on disgust and anger with the Trump administration. They are not craving more centrist policy.
Independents are only a growing voting block because fewer people are currently self-identifying as Republican. Hence the growing right-wing skew of self-identifying independents.
I'm not going to quote large sections of your post but once again, show me the results. The Democratic party has been bending over backwards doing exactly what you describe for the past several decades. They haven't been in a weaker position than the current one in decades. They lost to Trump with this terrible strategy, there was never a larger contrast between someone being relatively centrist and appealing to independents vs a raging, extremist asshole. How can you continue to defend this strategy when it does nothing but lose what should be gimmie elections?
Yeah, the appeal to authority you're making right here? I'm one of those authorities. Hi, nice to meet you.
The problem is that they don't have resources. Useful voter outreach costs a lot of money, and only in this election and 2008 have they really had the money to do it. Guess what? Minority turnout is way up, young voter turnout is way up, first time voter turnout is way up, people are showing up for midterms that only vote in presidential elections.
The problem will come if we don't have as money in 2022 and revert back to the bad and proven losing strategy of spending our meager resources on the mythical independents based on bad assumptions and proven-false theories about the electorate.
that's basically a policy vote, buddy. a vote against trump is an explicit vote for democratic policy--trump is intrinsically linked with the current policy of all republicans, and he's the main driving force of their policy even if you entertain the idea he's not the one proposing most of it.
oh and for the record, this is a great way to lose the shit out of the senate. people in tennessee and arizona and north dakota and indiana do not want liberals or leftists, they want centrists. there's a reason kyrsten sinema--who is a centrist democrat--is winning in arizona, but david garcia--who is a progressive democrat--is losing. this idea that centrist policy isn't the best strategy in most states reeks of an ideological bubble that desperately needs to be burst before it loses democrats layup races under the mistaken idea that because states voted for bernie sanders in the 2016 primaries or whatever = a clamoring for progressive policies.
well for one thing, literally the election of doug jones and ralph northam suggest that centrism actually plays pretty well, given that it... you know, won elections. but more importantly, hillary lost to donald because she was cocky and didn't campaign in places where she should have. if she'd been more proactive in campaigning, she'd have probably won. you cannot claim that a strategy which got three million more people to vote for her than donald trump does not work, because that's ridiculous. we just happen to also live in a country where what the voters say they want is effectively a non-binding referendum because for some reason we prioritize the distribution of voters over the number of voters.
you'll notice that only one of those categories consists of non-voters or first time voters--so effectively, you've just made my point for me. they're not targeting mostly non-voters or first time voters, because that's a patently fucking stupid strategy on a number of levels. they're targeting people who actually vote but who don't normally turn out for midterms.
I'm going to disagree with you and note that the data does not back up your assumptions of the voters.
So you've recognized that hey, everyone (including you) has no interest in making voting more accessible or helping marginalized people feel represented. But then you conclude that it's not you, but the children who are wrong.
Your last sentence basically says: "hey, young disenfranchised voters? Go get change because I sure as fuck am not going to help because the system works great for me".
When I look at that situation, I don't see the "lazy dumb millennial who doesn't want to jump through hoops to vote for your guy" as the problem. I see the lazy, complacent voters who are fine with making the system difficult and unrepresentative because they already jumped through the hoops, as an even worse problem.
Groups of well off middle aged people sitting around complaining that broke college kids think going to the post office is a pain in the ass, but can't be assed to push their leaders to make registration easy or automatic.
But sure, the college kid who feels uninformed and disenfranchised. They're the problem.
i feel like now is a good time to point out that your entire post is basically one giant incorrect assumption and that i actually am a marginalized, young, college-aged voter with zero income who feels just as hopeless as the rest of these fuckers about the situation.
the difference is that, rather than falling into this stupid pit of assuming that party elites and voters who are more consistent than people my age are going to suddenly hand over the reins of policy to people like me and that if they don't we live in hellworld and what's the point in voting, i vote to make it so that they have to and that eventually they will hand it off to us and do what we want, and vote even if they won't because if i'm not voting then i'm not getting a seat at the table ever. as it happens, this strategy worked really well for my state because actually voting in candidates who intend serve your interests (even if you on some levels don't agree with them) instead of abstaining from voting completely, amazingly enough, tends to combat this disenfranchisement you talk about--colorado as a consequence has some of the most progressive voting laws in the country and this makes it so easy to vote you almost have to go out of your way to not do so.
at the end of the day at least some, if not all of the onus for change is on the voter, and if you don't want to vote then that's fine, but don't be shocked when nobody gives a shit about your opinions and your state doesn't as a consequence reflect what you want, because the main way of voicing those opinions is voting, and by abstaining from voting all you're doing is withdrawing your voice from being considered.
Fair enough, and I used you as a generalization for the prevailing attitude of the thread (and a WaPo article FFS)
Responding to people talking about why they don't feel encouraged to vote with mockery and insults just cements for them that this system isn't for them or about them. Half of the posts in the OP were talking about places where it's been deliberately made more difficult for them to vote, but the only narrative anyone cares about is "wah stupid youths lol i did it why don't they"
Liberals will read 1000 articles talking about how "economic anxiety" is why Trump voters hate minorities and vote straight Racism party line while wringing their hands about how to reach out to those people. But god forbid you try to reach out to young people about getting health care or their student loans forgiven. THOSE people are idiots and everything that happens to them is their own fault.
That's their problem that they need to realize and change. If the Democratic party inspired typically non-voters to vote with policies that actually help people, they'd be doing a lot better right now.
AOC and Andrew Gillum won their primaries by getting typically non-voters to vote for them.
From your other comment:
Except it is, literally the job of political parties is to get people engaged and voting by reaching out to them and offering policies they'll like.
Democrats have lost >1000 seats starting in 2010 because they are horrible at inspiring people to vote.
this sounds a lot more like an argument for better candidates than one for better policies, and that's ultimately in the hands of voters. policy doesn't necessarily win elections.
you missed the non-voter part. it's not the job of the party to try and turn out unreliable or non-voters when they can just turn out reliable voters and get the job done that way. non-voters have completely neutered their own power by mostly being unreliable voters.
Candidates and policy go hand in hand, progressive candidate have progressive policies, neolib candidates have neolib policy. They got typically non-voters out by having policy more progressive than standard Democrats (though Gillum has made a move to the center).
Except when they can't, Democrats have been failing for years. The voters are "unreliable" because they won't reliably vote for their current policies/candidates, if the party changed their policies/candidates to appeal to those voters they will become reliable.
Vs trying to appeal to the vast market of "not racist Conservatives" who decide to vote D instead of R? Considering all of the branches of government have gone R, maybe they should re-think their strategy.
I just turned 18 two weeks ago, and I've already voted. Most of my friends are voting as well. Just because these twelve are choosing to stay out of politics, doesn't mean that all young adults are that apathetic.
A common theme seems to be
I don't know who to vote for.I didn't know who to vote for last month either. Then I took 30 minutes to visit https://votesaveamerica.com and read about all of the candidates I can vote for. I made my selections, printed off my cheat sheet, and used them to fill out my absentee ballot (which was also super easy to get, just mail in a form).
While it might be a little late now for most people, I'd suggest sharing that website (or one of the similar ones) with anyone who doesn't know who to vote for.
Also, I highly doubt that it was easier to get a Medical Marijuana card than it was to register to vote. I bet Jocelyn was just more motivated to smoke pot than to buy a stamp.
The problem, at least in my little clade, is not who to vote for as much as there are no satisfying candidates to vote for. Yes, in a purely short-term, immediate perspective, voting for the democratic candidate makes sense. They'll almost certainly be less outwardly evil than their opponent. But long term? This is a losing strategy. The democratic party continues to be a feckless wasteland of geriatric white men who have no convictions, courage, or even real beliefs. Why the fuck should I vote for these people? If they win this year, and they win 2020 nothing is actually going to change beyond a return to unacceptable pre-Trump status quo. And then you know what's going to happen? A Trump 2.0 is going to come along, except this time they'll be actually competent and openly fascistic. That's what your vote for the democratic party is doing, just delaying the inevitable. So yes, go vote (I did!), it'll probably do some small immediate good. But if that's going to be the extent of your political engagement don't pretend you're somehow better than non-voters, because you're not. You've both done the exact same amount to put the country onto a good track: absolutely fuck all.
Okay, so what do you propose people should do besides vote, since voting doesn't matter?
I didn't say voting didn't matter, I said that voting is not sufficient.
You should participate in your local primary process
You should canvass for the candidate you support during the primary process
You should attend town halls and demand that your representatives (at all levels, not just federal) do something instead of sitting around being useless
If your representatives continue to be useless, you should participate in or organize a campaign against them. Let everyone know how useless they are. Talk about it at city forums. Write into newspapers.
If your representatives aren't just useless but are actually evil you should feel free to publicly humiliate them and make their lives as uncomfortable as possible.
You should protest when the government, at any level, does bad things. This shouldn't be hard because governments, at all levels, are constantly doing bad things. If they don't listen, ramp it up from peaceful protest to full on civil disobedience. Refuse to acknowledge the authority of a government that does not answer to its citizens.
If your local government continues to be useless, you should join or organize an effort to act where it will not. Feed the poor, clean up the park, help your neighbors, build solidarity
Finally, vote with your wallet and don't support corporations that support evil regressive politics
That's a long, intimidating list. I agree that civic engagement should be more than voting every 4 years in presidential elections, but people have other shit going on. Constantly being involved in political action is tiring and frankly not sustainable for a lot of people. Scoffing at those who vote but can't do things like canvass is unhelpful.
I cannot believe the reaction to the article here.
The publishers of this article choose 12 people and featured their uninformed opinions because in the current political climate it evokes strong emotions. Just 12 young people! This borders on exercising a superiority fetish.
The rates of voting by age brackets (1984-2016) are affected by trends in such a distinctly similar pattern. Young people are still developing their sense of responsibility and building their lives then they grow more and become more and more likely to vote. To me this is plainly an acceptable, reasonably expected, and healthy behavior.
Voting rates between white and black people are extremely close from 1984 to 2016.
Yet this article features 3 white people and 11/12, in my experience, white names. I mentioned race because as well as being commented on here in a negative light, the data indicates that there is not a discernible pattern of young white people voting at rates which you should consider unexpected or controversial.
Encouraging young people to vote is a positive message in my opinion. I don't think this article accomplishes that. There's no discussion or thoughtful takeaway. Shaming people into good behavior is usually the least effective path.
Source: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
Pure propaganda despite the record voter registration everywhere. They do this so when democrats and progressives lose it seems realistic. Voter disenfrachisement is rampant everywhere and it's not just one party doing it.
registrations
disenfranchisement
I don't agree with these people's views, but I find it hard to blame them. Voting is a joke. Insiders rig primaries and were left to vote for one of two options selected by billionaires. If you don't vote for the winning candidate your vote was meaningless. Mainly Republican legislatures weaponize big data to gerrymander us into districts that destroy our political power. Then they work as hard as they can to make voting difficult.
We need a lot of reform to make voting less of a joke, then we can cast blame on those who opt out.
Seems cherry-picked. It's not very interesting if people just say "of course I'm going to vote".
To be fair the article is kinda hyperbolic, the reasons given are actually quite varied.
Samantha - seems to have given up on national politics after losing once.
Reese - I don't understand this guy. He studies political science but doesn't vote?
Tim - is probably going to vote despite his ADHD.
Megan - looks like systemic problems are making it difficult.
Drew - doesn't seem to be able to grasp that sometimes you have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
Laura - uninformed, not willing to make the effort.
Aaron - sees the theater but not willing to compromise.
Anna - again a badly designed system is getting in the way, but she might still vote.
Thomas - seems active in grassroots efforts at least but less willing to get involved nationally.
Jocelyn - again it's hard to register and she's ill.
Maria - hates politics but still invested in some issues, lazy.
Nathan - wants voting to be social media based, terrible idea!
Not when I'm around they aren't. Any of my friends who don't vote get cut off as soon as they talk about politics in any way shape or form and are reminded that they don't get a voice because they have chosen to not exercise it.
I get the sentiment, and hey, it's not your individual job to take on every issue...but that seems like it isn't going to make them any more likely to vote or engage politically. I'd suggest that instead of shutting down otherwise politically unengaged people when they try to engage with politics, you welcome them doing so and help guide them to seeing the necessity behind political action.
Yeah I said it forcefully but it's more like I point it out in a joking/playful manner. It's meant more to annoy them into action then anything else. I (and my friend group) already try to engage them other ways as well.
Choosing the lesser of two or more evils is literally the adult human condition. We do it every single day, all day long.
But somehow in politics it’s the exception?
Blechhhh. Logical discourse is gone?
Edit: I feel like this is a disease of the progressive/left, globally. The right had no philosophical problem with supporting Trump. He was their candidate, lesser of their two evils, and they voted for him.
Progressives didn’t like some line items of Hillary(which I totally understand) so we stayed home. Derp... our problem is overthinking it?
It was Trump or Hillary at that point. As a progressive, I'm sure you thought Hillary was the lesser of two evils here, so by staying home you essentially voted Trump. Either you're misleading yourself about being a progressive, or you didn't understand that not voting for one candidate is effectively voting for the other.
"Pick my person because they're less bad than that person, and if you feel that voting for that person conflicts with your values, eat shit and do what I want or this is all your fault"
Everyone who voted for Hillary in the primary voted for one of the few people who could lose to Donald Trump. Are you angry at them also?
Sometimes you're left with a choice between a rock and a hard place. You're welcome to choose to dig a deeper hole if you want, but don't be surprised if other people are angry that you did that, especially when that hole effects their lives too.
Yes, I am. But I'm a lot less upset with them then people who didn't even bother to turn out to vote against Trump. People who did the latter chose to be selfish. They cared more about their own personal values than the lives of millions of Americans.
Yes. That's objectively the only thing you can do. You have a few options when it comes to voting day. You can vote Republican, you can vote Democrat, you can vote for one of the small parties, or you can not vote. Lets say there are 6 options or so, depending on how many people got on the ballot.
Of those, voting for a small party and staying home can be immediately discarded. All they do is make your vote not count, and effectively give some portion of your vote to your least favorite of the two real candidates.
So you only actually have two real options. Vote for who you feel is the best candidate for the job, or vote for who you feel is the worst (actual) candidate for the job. That's it. Any other choice is an illusion. You can grandstand and complain about how it is unfair and horrible all day, but ultimately, all you can truly do is making one of those two choices. Vote for Trump, or vote for Hillary. If you like Trump less than Hillary, but decided not to vote in protest, you're effectively a Trump voter. I'm not saying that as a judgement call or to throw anyone's politics into question, I'm saying that from a political science standpoint, you helped Trump win the presidency. When I say there are only two actual choices, that's true in a very real way.
I think if people spent half the time engaging with WHY these people didn't want to vote for Hillary, it might actually help voter turnout. The "liberal media" wants to know why Trump voters are Trump Voters with a new article every week, but for liberals who didn't vote Hillary? Wag your finger and shame them and hopefully they'll do better next time.
If some Democrats started focusing on figuring out why people didn't want to vote for Hillary and aligning their policy to be more in line with those views. But again and again, shame anyone who thinks the party should be more progressive, and olive branch to "Moderate Republicans" and change views to accommodate them.
Oh, if you mean me personally, I totally voted Hillary.
Edit: I realize that my previous comment was unclear, and very poorly phrased. When I said “we progressives” I somehow meant “us” but not me.
The right had no problem voted Trump because they LOVE Trump. The entire party has had to change to be more Trump like, because Trump is the embodiment of exactly what Republicans want. Trump's approval rating remains sky high with Republicans. He's not the lesser of anything - he's exactly what they want and exactly what they got. Turnout dropped because there was a minority of the party who didn't want Trump, but the vast majority got exactly who they wanted.
I just wish more people would vote for third party candidates. The whole 2 party system is just ridiculous in this day and age. Democrats and Republicans tend to agree on a lot more then they realize but for some reason they decide to repeat the same arguments over and over.
As @spctrvl says below, you really shouldn't vote for a third party candidate. Even if you vehemently oppose our voting system and the entire concept of first past the post, by voting for a third party you're willingly giving away your political power. Voting for candidates in primaries that want to change the system is a better idea, but you should always vote for the best of the two mainstream parties in generals. A third party will never win a major election with our current system, it's just absolutely impossible. Third parties mean well, but the entire concept is idealistic and not grounded in reality in the US.
But if a third party presidential candidate gets 5% of the popular vote they receive federal funding right? That's got to be a step in the right direction. It almost happened in 2016. Personally I think a two party system gives an illusion of choice more than anything.
Literally doesn't matter. FPTP voting means that the absolute best case scenario for the third party is that it wins, and supplants one of the old parties in a new two party system inside ten years. Non-two-party electoral systems are inherently unstable with FPTP because of the spoiler effect.
I'd recommend watching this video if you want a straightforward breakdown of why we have a 2-party system, it's short.
That was a really good breakdown. Thanks for posting it.
The more votes a third party gets, the worse off everyone that voted for that party, and their closest ideological allies are. The better a leftist third party candidate does, the worse off leftists and left moderates are, unless they somehow secure all of the votes of the democratic party, which is so unlikely that it's not worth even considering.
Even if that did happen, we would just get another two party system in the next election, with different parties. It doesn't have anything to do with American culture or money in politics, or corporate influence or even corruption, which are things that normally get blamed for why we have a two establish, entrenched parties. It's simply a mathematical certainty inherit in our voting system, like how if you role a dice enough times you'll get a 6 16.66% of the time, or how in a room full of 80 people, two of them will virtually always share a birthday.
(It's a game theory problem rather than a statistics problem, but you get my point.)
It's never a smart move, and third parties gaining any sort of traction if you share their ideology isn't a step in the right direction for you, it only hurts you.
That just doesn't work unless we get rid of first past the post voting, or some third party has non-compete arrangements with one of the big two. Otherwise, voting for a third party is equivalent to voting against the mainstream party that best represents you. The reason why the US only has two viable political parties isn't some failure of the voters to engage, it's because that's the mathematical equilibrium reached by our polling system. You want to change the party structure, you have to change the system.
That's making you a prick in a conversation quite frankly.
If voting changed anything it'd be illegal — old quote that still holds up. Voting does change precisely zero. You have a far right party and a medium right wing party. Nothing will be accomplished being one of millions and millions of people who chooses one of two shitty options.
What we need is direct action, rallies, protests, revolutions. Revolutions are the engines of history. Not voting.
Okay, let's go that route then. How about you prove to me that every vote ever held has changed absolutely nothing. That sounds like an awful daunting task, does it not? That's because it's absurd and untenable.
Do I agree that many instances of voting are just for show? Absolutely.
Do I believe that all voting in America changes nothing? Absolutely not. That's an absurd proposition.
Voting can let those parties know what direction to take. They might resist the change, but ultimately their party base will decide this direction - this is evident by the change of these parties over time.
I agree, but how many people participate in these and don't vote? We're talking about getting people who have given up on politics here.
On the other hand: If voting changed nothing, the people in power wouldn't waste their time making it so difficult for certain classes of people to vote.
(See: voter purge in Georgia, voter ID laws disenfranchising Native Americans in North Dakota and other minorities elsewhere, and many other examples of oppressive voter registration rules cited in this thread.)
Tell that to all the people who've had their children kidnapped and put in cages by the Trump administration, or the transgender people who've been stripped of right after right, or the woman who watched her rapist get put on the supreme court, or those suckers who share a planet with a United States government hell bent on making it unfit for human life.
Like, I'm as left as they come, and I get that the Democrats suck, but this isn't a game. Elections have consequences, as I thought was made obvious by 2000, 2004, 2010, 2014, or at the very least 2016. If we don't get the republicans out of government sooner rather than later, they're going to do irreparable damage to the planet, not to mention the people still living on it. Building socialism in the midst of an ecological collapse or fascist dictatorship is gonna be a bitch. Revolution and direct action are all well and good, but voting takes ten minutes every year or two, so even if you don't think it's an effective way to promote change, please do me and everyone else on the planet a favor and do it.
Do you really think that if we elected Gore in 2000 (FL election fraud notwithstanding), we would have spent 16 years at war? You say voting changes nothing, but ~4500 Americans, and half a million Iraqis would most likely still be alive today if a few hundred people voted differently.
Your line is one of those that sounds pithy and common sense at first glance, but if you really look at it, we could have saved a great deal of suffering over the years simply by people casting ballots differently. If that doesn't count as changing something, what does?
Here in Turkey voting is compulsory, and is regarded as a main responsibility of any citizen that can vote (18 yrs old or older, not a soldier or a student in a military school, a couple other small things). There is a fine of TRY22 (around $3) if you don't vote, but usually ignored by the authorities. Though you can cast a blank vote. Turnout is always ~%75-85.
Edit: In addition, there's no friction too, you're registered automatically, just vote on the election day until 17:00.
2016 was also her first time voting. If you're disillusioned after a single election cycle, boy do I have bad news for you. Reality is disillusioning, but we can't just sit on the sidelines and ignore it.
What a joke of a system where this is even a possible thing to do. In most countries going to vote is much less difficult than paying the fine for not voting.
Ignore that almost every one of them had a common refrain about their political beliefs, and just make a mocking article about those darn millennial kids these days. Then wring your hands about why youth voter engagement is so low, and mock them some more.
I read this as actually mocking the Intelligencer piece more than Millenials honestly. I'm a quintessential millenial and I truly don't find caricatures like that insulting at all. At least among my group of friends, I find we lean into them. If I make anything with an avocado you can be SURE my boyfriend is going to make a crack about us not living in a house. We tell people we can't get married because we have to kill the diamond industry, and that even though we honestly work ridiculous hours we are obviously THE laziest most entitled brats on the planet.
Now I understand how we've been berated with this shit for at least the past decade minus the sarcasm, and that it is really affecting people our age. However; I find articles like the OP far more harmful and reinforcing of negative stereotypes than a satirical piece posted here.
Thanks for posting, this made me feel better about the original article.