There is also some research showing this 'wisdom' of crowds in polling that theorizes if you ask someone who they think will win - versus who they support - the result will be more accurate prediction [1]
This article mentions "complacency" and "dejectedness" which are so sad to me and so prevalent among people under 40
I work in politics and hear online: why vote it doesn't matter, all politicians are bought for corporate stooges there are no differences between R and D.
There are valid critiques on these issues, but from my perspective this attitude is a cancer which benefits a conservative minority.
I don't know why you say conservative minority. I'd argue that it benefits whoever the majority is.
In Quebec, Canada, it's the liberal party. A blend of progressives and conservatives, but it seems to me they are more progressive than not. Imagine voting for conservatives here during the federal elections, when you know that the province just doesn't like conversatives that much. They only have a chance when the liberals get the people very mad.
In the USA, I think there're plenty of conservatives still, I wouldn't call them a minority.
I'm trying to make a point similar to what the article said. At least to my understanding.
that in this model the majority (liberal leaning) feel like their vote doesn't count or doesn't matter since they are in the majority they feel safe which is amplified by group dynamics, therefore they don't vote as much. while on the other hand the minority feels the opposite so vote more as the underdog. That benefits the minority.
It's in their first sentence "resulting in the election of politicians who do not represent the preferences of the electorate as a whole."
By conservative he meant (edit: I thought he meant...) maintains-the-status-quo, which in modern politics is neither a Liberal/Conservative nor Democrat/Republic issue. Elites and bought-and-paid-for political hacks on both sides are "conservative" in that sense.
I prefer to use a different term, since that only invites confusion.
Because the available choices change their platforms in response to the voting public to some degree. By not voting, you send the message that they don't need to care what you want, since you don't vote. It's the same reason that it's so hard to get permission to build new housing in some places: the people who would most directly benefit don't vote (because they don't live there yet).
There's no way for me to give them feedback and tell them their views are shite by voting
That doesn't make sense, votes are binary and do not contain any other information
To add to this point, voting for someone I don't support seems (from my perspective) to send a message that I do agree with them and support their views, even if I think they're just slightly less shitty than the other option
Is that a better or worse message than "You don't need to care what I think"? If you think it's significantly worse, then fine, we disagree on that premise. If you think it's equal or better, then not showing up seems like an inefficient use of a rare resource (your vote).
The vote itself might not contain other information, but there are plenty of out-of-band ways to convey this information. The opinion you express when you call, write, answer a poll, or really any other public activity is stronger if it's backed up by records that you consistently vote.
The feedback is you win or you loose. If you don't like someone vote for their opponent. Or a 3rd party if you really want.
most of the politicians I work with will gladly change their positions on issues based on election results and polling. Gay marriage is a great and extreme recent example.
You are correct, but for someone who is heavily involved in academia I don't have the time to do so at the moment. It is something I consider periodically
Even ignoring the other quality replies to this comment, this just seems to me an insane viewpoint.
It's kinda like saying "I'm starving, but I won't eat any of the food on this table because I don't like it".
What?
I can maybe see how this is reasonable if you don't vote but also spend significant time/money investing in trying to bring about candidates who you feel do represent what you want. But, most people with this opinion seem to simply do nothing. That's a pretty childish stance to take, it seems.
As much as you might not like it, the reality is that you only have so many ways to influence things, so you should probably at least put the bare minimum effort in and vote. If you can't be assed to do that, well, I think you forfeit your right to complain about the situation.
This isn't an accurate analogy. I'd say people who have this viewpoint view both parties as poison, not food. Maybe one is slightly less poisonous, but we'd rather have neither.
But you're gonna have to eat one of these two dishes, and you can help deciding which ones best, even if both are terrible.
Its like saying: I hate getting vaccinated but I'm not gonna join take part in a society being unvaccinated. But there's only these 2 practical choices. The other ones are niche (e.g. leaving society living in a treehut or a tundra, committing suicide, going to Mars for science -- these kind of extreme outliers).
If I were American (ie. read US citizen), I'd never discount any of the dishes. After all, there's only two practical choices...
..which, despite all the current issues, makes me happy I got more than two in The Netherlands. But it also gives me compassion that Americans, given they only got two. What a system...
> Maybe one is slightly less poisonous, but we'd rather have neither.
Abstaining doesn't get you neither, though it does increase the chance of getting whichever one you want least compared to engaging productively (and that's assuming “engaging” is just voting in the general election, and not deeper engagement beyond the last-step, lesser-of-two-weasels choice.)
We do not have to wait for a perfect political system in order to express the small amount of political power we have in this one.
I simply do not believe you if you think literally all politicians you can vote for are equidistant from your views and desires.
Nobody is smart, careful, or powerful enough to wholesale rig elections in the U.S, if that's what you're going to say next.
If you really care about changing the politicians you get to vote for, then the easiest way to help change that is to hold your nose and vote in every election.
Democrats just passed the largest infrastructure spending bill in ages (including a huge push to get everyone broadband, among other great programs), are actively working on a massive boost to social spending, accomplished a trillion dollar relief package (direct payments) early on, and cut child poverty by nearly half (projected), all while dealing with a paper-thin majority in the senate.
Within the realities of how the political system works, that’s pretty progressive.
I was going to comment about how that’s a bad attitude and toxic approach to voting that gets us presidents like Donald Trump, which is all true. But I am starting to be really frustrated by the progressive meme that democrats haven’t accomplished anything and are just slightly less bad than republicans. Good stuff is happening, and you can choose to ignore it at the country’s peril. #Trump2024
> Democrats just passed the largest infrastructure spending bill in ages
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal is not progressive; the progressive goals were either in BBB and require both BBB and BID, and center-right Democrats (including the leadership, by accommodating the more visibly hostile party members) threw away BBB by pushing BID separately contrary to commitments to do them together.
> But I am starting to be really frustrated by the progressive meme that democrats haven’t accomplished anything
Democrat have accomplished a lot recently that would have been no controversial during the peak of the bipartisan center-right neoliberal consensus, but very little—and arguably negative value—from a progressive standpoint.
They’ve been significantly less negative than Republican domination would be, but even with the “significantly” qualifier, “not as bad as the people who goaded, aided, and continue to pander to the mob who stormed the Capitol chanting for the head of the VP from their own party for not being sufficiently supportive of arbitrary authoritarianism” is a pretty low bar.
I mean I am a progressive Democrat whose first election was the first one Bill Clinton one, so I have the perspective of having seen quite a significant erosion of the power of the center-right power bloc in the Democratic Party in my period as an active participant in the process, so I am not going to argue against electoral engagement by progressives. But I am also tired as fuck of the center-right corporate conservatives in the Party trying to sell every success in advancing their agenda won by pulling the rug out from under progressives as somehow a win for progressives.
the build back better (bbb) act is decidedly not progressive. it aims to spend lavishly, entirely funded by debt with no hope of positive return, so that that spending can be captured by the already wealthy. the only bit of that bill that could be considered progressive is the change in tax rate for the wealthy/corporations, but that's such a tiny band-aid on a huge gaping wound, that's it's not even really worth mentioning.
I agree! Also look at your city, school board, and state level. That's where a ton of real impact happens and people don't even know it.
And unfortunately the Republicans are amazing at taking our accomplishments, twisting them into a lie based fervor for their gain. Obamacare is a great example before these bills. a more pessimistic viewpoint is that they go further and force bad situations to help win elections by causing or extending pain (default drama, covid, state benefits)
On potential Build Back Better bill, it won't be 2T not even as drafted. I would bet just over 1T if it even passes at all. AND it will be paid for if it passes. But all the news reports lead with 2T massive spending bill.
Mitch McConnell refuses to help increase the debt limit and they are messaging that Dems are have caused all this debt and forcing all your home costs to skyrocket. Despite the fact the transportation bill was bipartisan and so was all the covid stimi. that message is SUPER effective. inflation is a tough topic but the debt is a flat out lie. A ton of our debt is from Republican tax cuts. THEY should be helping pay that bill!
none of that is progressive. progressive policies would increase fairness, first and foremost, rather than simply spending lavishly to buttress a top-heavy, growth-at-all-costs economy. all of those Democratic bills worsen fairness, often intentionally and deceptively. you've been entirely captured by mediopolitical propaganda if you believe that's what progressiveness looks like.
real progressivism would dismantle policies that serve to concentrate money and power (like our highly regressive tax policy), because progress depends on dynamism rather than ossification, and none of these blls even pretend to do that.
Real progressives don’t agree on what progress means. No amount of progress is ever enough. If no amount of progress is enough, no progressive politician is enough. Progressives then don’t show up at the polls for anyone who isn’t a “real progressive”. And then progressives have the gall to complain that the few progressives who do manage to get elected are fighting for table scraps.
I’m becoming convinced that the true definition of a progressive isn’t based in any specific ideology, but in a refusal to acknowledge the constraints of politics. And the result is progressives would rather compete to have the best idealistic vision for utopia than actually do what is needed to win elections and make progress.
i specifically used 'progressivism' rather than 'progressive' to avoid that exact identity issue. identifying with an ideology, particularly with an amorphous one, devolves into tribalism and partisanship.
progressivism in US politics is largely defined by mediopolitical interests anyway so it's entirely detached from any principled stance. Democrats now tend to use this term because 'liberal' has gone out of fashion, so they co-opted another term that had less existing baggage. for politicians and political parties, principles are simply tools to be wielded and bent in the service of power, not the other way around. that's why there's no agreed-upon definition.
but none of this has to matter at all for the majority of voters who have little power outside of their tiny vote. if such voters would stop identifying with ideologies, parties, and especially politicians (and ignore media who push this upon us), we'd actually collectively have more sway over the platforms they ran on, because we'd be resistant to being railroaded mindlessly into sets of policy positions shaped by more highly motivated (but numerically tiny) moneyed interests. we'd make amassing and deploying power harder that way.
Yeah that's one of the views I think helps drive this 'dejectedness' and 'complacency'!
That's for sure a valid opinion, I personally think most elected Dems are too conservative - the problem is lots of them are elected in relatively conservative states. Not all. Erm erm Diane Feinstein. But many. Manchin for instance would never get elected if they held even 10% of AOC's viewpoints.
But to not vote or to not work for the election of Dems because they don't line up with your views completely ignores that if those not as liberal as you want Dems don't get elected even more polar opposite to your viewpoint Republicans will fill their place.
I'm not sure I'm making describing my thoughts well.
but do you really think a Ted Cruz type Republican's views are not less aligned with your views than say a moderate Dem?
If you believe in a more balanced majoritarian senate (reasonable arguments for it not being one) we need DC as a state to help even out the Senate. maybe if liberals keep decamping from large coastal cities it might make lower population R states more competitive.
US progressives that aren't alienated from the political process tend to be Democrats (by voting behavior if not identity), but the reverse is not true; Democrats as a whole are a coalition of (mainly) progressives center-right corporate conservatives, the latter being somewhat more dominant, and many of them (Manchin and Sinema get a lot of attention recently, but the problem is much deeper) regularly ally with Republicans against progressives.
> Why would I support any politician when the available choices do not line up with my views and desires in almost any fashion
Engagement alters the available choices; engagement by (frequently disappointed) progressives has reduced the center-right domination of the Democratic Party from its peak in the 1990s.
I had also written this longer bit but felt more political, and less political science, then top comment so separated it.
Would be hard to build into this model, but it would be interesting to see how powerful self reinforcing voter suppression has been in driving this anti-turnout group bias.
The more they suppress the vote and play games the more people feel it's rigged and don't participate.
Social media both amplifies and provides a platform for campaigns to weaponize.
Deliberately targeting voters on FB to enforce messages of black complacency - using BLM as 'dejectedness' and 'complacency' of no change so that their vote doesn't matter. [2,3].
Lots of instances of targeting black and brown voters with calls giving wrong info on when or how to vote [4]. Russia copied this race baiting and they also targeted conservatives [5].
This past election saw targeted Hispanic voters, having candidates change their names in Florida to confuse the ballot. I can't find a quick source but one of these spoiler candidates even shaved their head lol to have a more similar look so far as I can remember.
To be fair there is also a history of similar racist push polling by Dems in the south during primaries too but the overwhelming suppression of voters is perpetrated by conservatives.
Why it benefits a conservative "minority" and why it is problematic? If people don't vote to either side how does it benefit one side more than the other and even if it does why is it a problem? Some side win at the end anyway and since those people don't care why would it matter which side won?
I don't think that it is surprising at all. I wouldn't call it friendship, but if a group of people who share a common political goal that opposes others, thinks that their group is a majority who will win a vote by a big margin, then those people are less likely to vote. See Brexit. Or maybe even the 2016 US election, where most people seemed assured that Clinton would win, and perhaps because of that didn't vote (also because they didn't get Bernie as a candidate.)
Democracy is unrecoverable. Imagine for a moment that the employees of McDonald's get to vote for a CEO every four years.
A bunch of employees get together and vote their friend Reggie in. Reggie doesn't do anything crazy, but his supporters now all are promoted to management, he signs a bunch of contracts to supply things from his brother in law and he takes the company jet to Thailand and never leaves.
Reggie gets voted out and Sally gets voted in.
The company is making a little less money but it is her turn and she throws out all of the Reggie followers in management and promotes the Sally followers to management, voids the contracts causing costly lawsuits and gives a bracelet for free McFlurries for life.
She then mandates that Wendy's employees get a vote. She takes a flight to Thailand and stays for two terms thanks to the Wendy's vote.
Dave III takes over and promises to heal the burger divide and promises that Wendy's employees votes will count double because they have been disenfranchised for years, he voids all Sally's contracts once again a costly move that almost bankrupts the company. He leaves her employees because of the Wendy's deal. With new brother in laws and new contracts signed, Dave rallys the voters and tells them he is going to protect their future by putting their pensions and retirement into the company's trust, and appoints his wife as trustee. They take the remaining money and retire in New Zealand.
Every shift in power weakens the company. Every clean out and replacement of staff is a huge cost to the company.
Common people can never exert enough influence to better their situation beyond short term nepotism.
The problem isn't democracy, it's voting. Sortition is a better way of conducting democracy. Experiments with citizens' assemblies in Ireland and elsewhere have so far yielded promising results. Sortition combined with a robust deliberative structure yields surprisingly good performance.
The author of this paper, Steven Strogatz, is also the author of Nonlinear dynamics and Chaos. This is a seriously good math textbook, and really accessible to beginners. I highly recommend the book.
Sure it gets more people to vote, but for whom, and how are the benefits distributed, and by whom?
Not proof, and I may not like the inevitable conclusion, but this would be immediately corrupted by the democracy it intends to improve, if not sooner.
How off-base is the idea of functional voting? Form a bloc that pledges to vote for the party that will do something about their key issues, ignoring the normal party split. If their bloc has a substantial impact on the outcome, next election they have a touch more ability to influence the incumbents.
So form an explicitly disloyal "party" from within the existing system. If it catches on...
Well, at 60% turnout, you've got a true distribution of:
1. 36% unfairly unhappy
2. 24% unfairly happy
3. 40% meh as intended
Honestly, that places it at 64% meh-to-happy vs 36% unhappy vs. it going the other way as 76% meh-to-happy vs 24% unhappy. I think that's a pretty big improvement in happiness but I can see why the question was asked.
Even if everything is working perfectly correctly, it is inevitable that some minority will win sometimes in a democracy. Even with universal mandatory voting and in an election system that satisfies the Condorcet criterion.
There are probably some pretty shocking "minority wins" that happen all the time, especially in smaller local elections that use FPTP. We just can't ever possibly know about them at the same level of confidence as we can the election results themselves.
I mean elections are really just a messy byproduct of living in the real world anyway. If we really, actually knew with enough certainty that 51% of eligible voters would vote candidate A over candidate B then we really should just save ourselves the effort and put candidate A in office. I mean why not? While we're at it, let's just skip all the popularity nonsense and Do What's Best For Everyone.
If it happens once in a century, by some fluke? Probably not. If it happens with any consistency (say, 20% of the time, favoring a particular side) over a long enough time period, the majority is going to become disillusioned for obvious and frankly good reasons. A disillusioned majority is not good for a democracy.
Edit to add: Of course, with this particular effect, it is not necessarily clear to the demographics whether they are in the majority or the minority. This can lead to the paradoxical situation where everyone believes they are in the majority, and still get their way less often than they should. I think this is the case in much of the world today.
This article mentions "complacency" and "dejectedness" which are so sad to me and so prevalent among people under 40
I work in politics and hear online: why vote it doesn't matter, all politicians are bought for corporate stooges there are no differences between R and D.
There are valid critiques on these issues, but from my perspective this attitude is a cancer which benefits a conservative minority.