USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
There are a lot of them about, thankfully not on here. "They're all crooks, what's the point?" "The sooner we get anarchy the better."
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I get "I do not like either of them" .. but there are other options .. leave it blank, vote 3rd party as two examples and vote for the non "headline" races, which often are the ones that directly affect people the most (from mayor, to school board, to state level reps, etc)
But I also get "I cannot make an informed decision, I do not follow this stuff" or "I just do not care" reasons for not voting.
But, it will not make a difference if you are informed and care is lame IMO. Your candidate might not win, but you at least state a preference and slimming up the margins of victory could encourage someone who might be able to win run the next time or make whoever won be a little more careful if they are thinking about re-election.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
A good result is more important than all this "Redneck Ronald and Rightwing Robin should have voted"-talk.
Nah, let these twostay ignorant watch Fox News. At home, without knowing how to close and send an envelop.
Lefty Larry and Barry Blueneck however, they may vote in order to have a good result.
Nah, let these two
Lefty Larry and Barry Blueneck however, they may vote in order to have a good result.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Wow .. okay
In addition to what has been said before, there is also a lack of knowledge/caring about local elections even though those are arguably more important for a variety of reasons. They affect you more directly and, since it's a smaller electorate, your vote matters a lot more. Plus a lot of people who complain about "them all being crooks anyway" don't realize that a lot of these big name politicians began their careers on a local level (or worked under someone who started on a local level) and eventually worked their way to higher offices.* If people looked at local elections with the same amount of importance and scrutiny as they do the big ticket elections, you'd have a much different and more representative government. As it is now, the most politically involved people seem to be for fringe candidates.
It's also worth mentioning that party lines start to blur as you go further down the ticket. Since the focus is less on hot button issues and more on things that actually affect the immediate community, you find a lot more agreement at least on what the goal should be. I remember in the last election the Democrat and Republican candidates on one ballot essentially had the same candidate. That's obviously an extreme, but in a lot of cases you'll find that candidates don't feel the need to bend their campaign to fit a big tent party. Instead, it's more tailored off the interests of the state/city/town/etc.
*Obviously Donald Trump is an exception to this, but I think the sentiment still applies here. Donald Trump was able to create the momentum he had because of what started as a grass roots movement. You could also argue that his campaign benefitted from a broken system, again something that needs to be fixed by local governments across the country.
It's also worth mentioning that party lines start to blur as you go further down the ticket. Since the focus is less on hot button issues and more on things that actually affect the immediate community, you find a lot more agreement at least on what the goal should be. I remember in the last election the Democrat and Republican candidates on one ballot essentially had the same candidate. That's obviously an extreme, but in a lot of cases you'll find that candidates don't feel the need to bend their campaign to fit a big tent party. Instead, it's more tailored off the interests of the state/city/town/etc.
*Obviously Donald Trump is an exception to this, but I think the sentiment still applies here. Donald Trump was able to create the momentum he had because of what started as a grass roots movement. You could also argue that his campaign benefitted from a broken system, again something that needs to be fixed by local governments across the country.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
This is funny, but higher turnout actually supports your preference here. Right-wingers are a minority in the U.S., but they are much more reliable voters than left-wingers. As a result, higher turnout almost always benefits left-wing candidates. (The presidency is a bit different because the electoral college is structurally tilted to the right.)
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Exactly, the town I live in has non partisan races for mayor and town council, a few of the folks that ran in the past have made their party preference pretty obvious, others have not. One is running as a county commissioner as a Democrat this year and I voted for him just based on him being really good on the town council IMO and the office he is running for is pretty similar, just on a larger level. I have no clue where the guy stands on the bigger national issues, but it really does not matter, that is not what these offices are.
I agree with that. When I was voting here I voted for someone who had volunteered with the local Conservatives for some time, because her plan was the strongest and most achievable (not in fairy-tale land), whereas the candidate for mayor for whom I voted is a former Liberal MP. When picking federally, I strongly consider who is likely to win the riding, and if that person will be in the majority - regardless of government. Currently, my personal beliefs don't align at all with the Conservatives, but I have voted for all four of Canada's major federal parties in the past.
Provincially, I was prepared to vote Progressive Conservative until their leader got #metoo'd and they replaced him with an absolute moron (remember crack mayor of Toronto Rob Ford? His brother). They won regardless and it's a shitfest here.
Provincially, I was prepared to vote Progressive Conservative until their leader got #metoo'd and they replaced him with an absolute moron (remember crack mayor of Toronto Rob Ford? His brother). They won regardless and it's a shitfest here.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
That is same for Croatia too.
Also the "left" and the "right" party aren't that different just like in U.S. The core policies of the country do not change when power gets transferred.
I don't prioritize voting for parliament or presidency because the bulk of the candidates has been pretty bad in the last years. I do local elections because they're the ones having the most effect on my life. Above and beyond that, it's pretty much all the same.
Turnout even helps Democrats in the electoral college despite the system itself favoring republicans. Hillary’s failure to bring out the Obama coalition in the rust belt definitely contributed to her loss. I know there were Obama voters who switched over, but a lot of them simply didn’t vote.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I would take some issue at who the electoral college helps. The Dems have a lock on California, Illinois, and New York (and other smaller states), which are a slew of electoral votes (104). The GOP has Texas and many smaller states
It really always comes down to Ohio, Florida, and one or two other states that are really swing states and decide the whole deal.
Where the Dems might take a hit after 2020 are states like Illinois loosing residents and California growth slowing so some of those states might loose a vote or two.
It really always comes down to Ohio, Florida, and one or two other states that are really swing states and decide the whole deal.
Where the Dems might take a hit after 2020 are states like Illinois loosing residents and California growth slowing so some of those states might loose a vote or two.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Every state gets a guaranteed 2 electors from their Senate seats, plus population-based electors from their House seats. Since rural states are smaller in population and almost always deep red, the +2 electors from their Senate seats are spread across a smaller population, effectively amplifying their vote in the electoral college. So a voter in Wyoming has a roughly 3.5x larger say than a voter in California in determining who becomes president. Since smaller states are disproportionately right-leaning, this effect almost exclusively helps Republicans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/how-fair-is-the-electoral-college/?noredirect=on
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
.. to add, that is really the system and it is unlikely to change. Every candidate knows that is the deal going into the election and that is how you win. So Hillary did well limiting her margin of defeat in states like Georgia and running up big totals in states like California .. but she did not campaign at all in some states that are generally Democratic and lost them .. and that is what lost her the election.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Sure, but it’s also the reason that you see Democratic candidates repeatedly winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college. Which feels...not so democratic. (Pun intended.)
And I think that a compromise people could live with would be to dole out each state’s electors proportionately based on the popular vote in each state, rather than the winner-take-all approach almost every state currently uses. This would still have some vote weighting disparity, but it would make every state matter again, and it would greatly reduce the chance of a popular / electoral vote result mismatch.
Unfortunately, each state sets its own voting rules, and I don’t think that could be changed without a constitutional amendment.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Distributing electoral votes proportionally is something I strongly support. The problem there is that a bunch of states would need to do it at once. The Dems are not going to do it in California unless the GOP does it in Texas (or vice versa) for example. But that does not need a Constitutional amendment ... it could happen tomorrow. It would make the campaigns have to have a more national appeal, so you would see candidates going to California, Texas, New York, or even Wyoming for a reason beyond fundraising.
I do think the electoral college serves some good purposes
1) From a practical standpoint if we had an election that came down to a 1% or less margin, the recounts would be a total nightmare having to do it nation wide .. precinct my precinct.
2) From a less practical standpoint the "states" part in United States is important and they should not be further marginalized.
But in the end, getting rid of it is a Constitutional Amendment which is not going to happen
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
I guess the confusion arises because to us Europeans a lot of people from the USA (including many democrats) would be classified as right-wing.