Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
More to the point, as a political strategy, do you think screaming at people to vote, acusing them of being shifty useless no-goodnicks is actually effective at driving voter turnout?
If you say "we're not griping as a strategy, we're griping because it's THE TRUTH" then sure-but by the same token, it is 100% true that the reasons these people are griping is also due to the truth.
If you had mandatory voting, that'd probably change the dynamic substantially enough that I don't know if districts would be quite so mathematically uncompetitive though, so I'd be open to that sort of thing.
And empirically, the chances of that are happening are zero.
We are all men and women of science.
edited 28th Oct '15 8:27:39 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
I'd say just eliminate things like the electoral college to make the one person more equally equal one vote, but I'm not sure how anyone could get the public fired up in a serious "we want reform of this to be an issue our representatives consider" movement kind of thing.
I mean, obviously there's a lot of people that care about making the voting system more streamlined, fair, and democratic, I'm just not sure how to get people to consider it when the "don't fix what ain't broke" argument can be made for a thing people don't think about except for a semester in high school.
Anyway, I didn't watch the debate, but I'm getting the impression you all thought it was a shambles. Not quite sure what to think from the after show interviews I'm watching. (I actually forgot that was tonight.)
![]()
And again, the chances are zero because people think they are.
As annoying as it is the electoral college is better than popular voting. We'd have the entire nation run by a handful of cities if the college wasn't in place.
It's far from perfect though.
edited 28th Oct '15 8:30:12 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?I have been laid off three times in one year thanks to my governor. My unemployment wont even cover my rent. My health insurance from the ACA has been cancelled leaving me without treatment I need to actually have a quality of life.
And I am one of the more lucky ones.
I am not really in a position to worry about hurting people's feelings when their lack of action is directly allowing the policies that are hurting me and my family to come into being.
Again, it isnt just the president you are chosing.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurHmm...
No, I'm pretty sure that even with 100% voter turnout, gerry mandered states would still be pretty uncompetitive.
But, here's the fact: the decision matrix of an INDIVIDUAL does not represent the decision matrix of the entire country.
Your goal needs to be less "shame lazy people into voting" and more "how do we, on a macro level, get people to vote." Because as I said earlier, it's all about momentum. I think it's a perfectly legitimate point, for instance, to say "well, my vote may not matter in this election, but it is part of the momentum of voting."
Anyway, like I said: my barrier is voter ID. I'm planning on trying to get said ID, and then shall vote. But I'm just saying, mathematically it's impossible that my vote will have an impact, and this type of "Man, you're terrible for not voting" rhetoric is not constructive towards the task of getting people to vote so I question why you would engage in it.
And I don't have to worry about your hurt feelings when I'm telling you your complaining is hurting this country as much as their not voting is because it may be having the opposite effect.
Nothing gets people to dig in their heels than making an argument that doesn't address the concerns they have.
edited 28th Oct '15 8:32:44 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Same reason protestors will burn a CVS pharmacy.
We're pissed. We're tired. We're being shat on. Some of us are being shot to death. Some of us are being denied education or occupations. Some of us are starving. Some of us are sick.
Some of us dont have the money to weather this storm in health and security.
And we are tired of being ignored and expendible.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurYou appear to be confusing two separate things, your votes ability to have an impact and your votes ability to swing an election in your area. Those are not the same thing, your vote always has an impact.
Again, if your vote didn't matter then why would Republicans be trying so hard to suppress it?
I've worked on political campaigns, every vote matter, every bloody one, it will have an effect if you cast it, I've just outlined several effects that your vote will have beyond any possibility of it swinging an actual election of some sort.
edited 28th Oct '15 8:37:28 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranOkay. And the people who don't vote are tired of people like you making them feel like crap. You want the situation to change? You have a strategy. And I can tell you, that strategy (probably) shouldn't include making enemies of the people whose help you need.
Although, you can certainly make a VERY legitimate argument that this is intended to be a "safe space" not a "tool for political manipulation" and I'm just being "an asshole for picking on you."
I certainly wouldn't disagree with any of that <<
They've actually, in the past, tried to spur voter turnout in places with high levels of Republican support, while simultaneously limiting it to areas with low levels of support. This argument doesn't hold water.
edited 28th Oct '15 8:37:55 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
Garcon,
But we are the horrible people right?
We just need to shut up and go back to our food pantries and cleaning houses for electric bill coverage cuz we making the rich people nervous.
Edit: We wont help you if you arent nice to us-
Not a real ally if you pull that card.
edited 28th Oct '15 8:39:02 PM by Gabrael
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurWe have a strategy, it's called "Good British Bunny Cop" "Angry American Polar Bear Cop". Everybody loves a transatlantic animal buddy cop act.
Voter turnout for their own voters, not Democrat ones. Same reason Dem votes in California still matter.
edited 28th Oct '15 8:40:14 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranGabreal, what's your purpose in having this conversation with me? Is it to convince me to take a certain action? If so, using such a blatant straw man is unlikely to be effective. Is it simply to vent, because I'm making you mad? Then using the straw man argument is likely to be effective, in which case, carry on.
The exact same logic applies to discussions with those that don't vote. Is the goal to make them vote, or is the goal to make one's self feel better about one's self because one's self votes and they don't? The course of action that is optimal for the former course is different from the latter.
To reiterate, if you by virtue of yelling at people cause them not to vote how are you any less responsible for "people dying from exposure" than they are?
Change your rhetoric to optimize for your intended goals.
And, also, to avoid arguing from a position of hypocrisy.
edited 28th Oct '15 8:41:38 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
I don't believe Gab has a strategy, she's simply pissed (and rightly so) at the fact that people who can vote don't and that she's the one suffering the consequences.
That or the buddy cop angle, she's trying to make me look calm so that you'll listen to one of us.
edited 28th Oct '15 8:44:27 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSo you are willing to hold your vote hostage because I hurt your feelings?
If anyone is willing to intentionally contribute to a political system that is killing their fellow citizens through dangerous policy just because the victims of those policies hurt their feelings by telling the truth:
Words cannot describe just how horrible of a human being you are.
If you claim to be an ally of social justice, care about stopping everything from policy brutality to medical fraud to education fraud, you will vote at the least.
And if you are willing to turn on the people who are suffering because they make you uncomfortable or hurt your feelings you were never an ally to begin with.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurAt the least. Because compared to, say, marching in protests, volunteering/working in candidate campaigns/ for specific causes, regularly firing off letters to state senators and representatives, (which does more than you'd think in a lot of states, just the other day I was hearing an NPR interview where a guy who runs a newspaper whose specific mission is to record and shine a light on the NY state legislature told an anecdote where a state rep was complaining about being "killed" by his constituents on an issue because his office had received a whopping 6 letters about it) voting is a ridiculously easy and low effort affair.
Now, I'll be the first to admit I don't do much more than voting of the above... but I work, am going back to school as an adult, and have done a couple of medical internships in the past few years, and I still find time to keep informed and to vote. For anyone who doesn't do those things or refuses to do so, what exactly is your excuse?
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |This is an insipid argument. You're not responding to my points at all: you're just venting angrily.
Again: I'm not the enemy. The non-voters, are not the enemy. The enemy is the act of not voting. If you want to affect positive change, you take a rhetorical stance that affects positive change, and calling people reprehensible people, regardless of whether or not they are does not affect positive change, and if your barometer for "this person is terrible" is "they do not affect positive change" then you are a terrible person by your own metric.
Not by mine, of course. Because I don't make those kinds of judgments.
Argue from a place of rationality. Because whatever terribleness that is a result of people not voting, the terribleness of people acting out of irrationality is a thousand times worse. Well, maybe only 100.
edited 28th Oct '15 9:43:28 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

It is mathematically impossible. We're talking an 80/20 district here.
Adjacent, of course, to a 20/80 district.