Many people aren't voting at all, because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc.
Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentional, it's even more effective. In North Carolina, Republicans won 77% of congressional seats with just over 50% of the popular vote in 2018. In Ohio, Republicans won 75% of congressional seats with 52% of the popular vote in 2018.
In most areas, single vote per election systems prevent third parties from being viable. There's some evidence this encourages extremism as well: moderates aren't able to sufficiently differentiate themselves, causing vote splitting.
And after all that, if they're still not able to win unfairly, electioneers can just go into the electronic voting machine and change the votes.
And even if you manage to get the person the majority wanted to be in office into office, there's no guarantee that they'll do what they said they'd do that caused people to vote for them. I know lots of people (myself included) who view being forced to buy health insurance or pay a fine as a major betrayal by Obama.
Choosing not to vote is a vote.
> because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc.
Felony disenfranchisement hardly contradicts my point. And anyway, voter suppression and felony disenfranchisement are at all time lows historically, so my point stands just fine.
> Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentional, it's even more effective. In North Carolina, Republicans won 77% of congressional seats with just over 50% of the popular vote in 2018. In Ohio, Republicans won 75% of congressional seats with 52% of the popular vote in 2018.
Sure. My point isn't that our democracy is perfectly implemented. My point is that its current incarnation is its most democratic yet. Until Obama, candidates were basically selected by the fiat of elite groups. Obama, and then Trump, up-ended that system, making our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse.
> Choosing not to vote is a vote.
Ugh, seriously, you didn't even bother to copy/paste the entire sentence? This is not how an intelligent conversation happens. Please don't do this.
> Sure. My point isn't that our democracy is perfectly implemented. My point is that its current incarnation is its most democratic yet. Until Obama, candidates were basically selected by the fiat of elite groups. Obama, and then Trump, up-ended that system, making our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse.
Okay. I'm not sure I agree with your point, but if that's your point, who cares? It's a point without implication: even if things really are better than they ever have been, we still shouldn't stop trying to improve things. "Better than ever before" is still not "good enough".
And that's if we accept that your point is even true. I don't think that either Obama or Trump are examples of real populism based on ideals. Both are polished, effective facades intended to appeal to certain groups.
I broke the sentence apart by points, and responded to each separately.
> Okay. I'm not sure I agree with your point, but if that's your point, who cares? It's a point without implication: even if things really are better than they ever have been, we still shouldn't stop trying to improve things. "Better than ever before" is still not "good enough".
My point is that if you think "what we need is more democracy" you're going to be very disappointed in the results.
No, you didn't. The sentence was one point, and your "response" to the first half of the sentence is only seems like a response if you ignore the second half of the sentence. I'm not going to dignify this silliness: you quoted me out of context, and have yet to respond to what I actually said in context.
> My point is that if you think "what we need is more democracy" you're going to be very disappointed in the results.
That wasn't remotely clear from your previous post, but it's pretty easy to show that you have no basis for saying that.
1. I don't buy that this is the most democratic point in US history.
2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results.
I responded to the second part of your point right afterwards. I responded to the totality of what you said. Read it again.
You may not have intended for them to be broken out as I did, which would just be to say you didn't intend to say "Many people choose not to vote" in isolation. That's fine - I still responded to the second part of what you said in conjunction with the first in the very next point.
> That wasn't remotely clear from your previous post, but it's pretty easy to show that you have no basis for saying that.
>1. I don't buy that this is the most democratic point in US history.
You "showing" that I have no basis for that is you saying that you don't buy it? Democracy is the manifest will of the electorate. I gave specific supporting reasons for my point here, you could try to attack those if you had an argument.
> 2. The US certainly is not the best example of a democracy, and better examples of democracy have gotten better results.
I didn't say that it was. But there are many examples of 'democracy' in the world, with a great many different outcomes. Democracies are only as good as the will of their constituents.
Abstaining is not voting. I look forward to the day we have a national election holiday, when the US gets around to being serious about democracy.
> our democracy more democratic than it ever has been. For better or worse.
I agree wholeheartedly. The US public are upset to see changes (as they always have been), but don't seem to understand it's of the population's own making in recent presidential elections.
Yea America is broken, the two party system is broken - so start voting strategically for third parties that actually represent plans to fix the system - no your candidate won't be elected but you'll both pressure existing candidates and make new candidates eligible that endorse the voting reform you want to see.
I think, in this current age, we've actually got some decent mainstream contenders with solid voting reform plans and maybe, if no one who endorses your other values endorses those plans, then you should vote third party to encourage them to adopt them as well.
Also, bear in mind that voting for a third party is essentially not expressing your opinion when it comes to policy (assuming there is a candidate that aligns with your value) so this advice is pretty much solely aimed at those who would choose not to vote - also don't vote for Mickey Mouse, it's possibly the least effective way to protect the system because nobody cares about those votes.
I agree this is what democracy looks like, though. Demagogues like Trump (if one agrees that he's a demagogue; many surely disagree) are a likely eventual outcome of it, though they also have an advantage in almost every other system.
The primary process has been dominated by elite party members basically since the inception of the country.
Having a “primary process” is a actually a very new, more democratic change; it hasn't existed since the inception of the country; historically, Presidential nominations conducted directly and exclusively by insiders; originally usually by the party’s Congressional caucus, later (starting mid-19th Century and into the latter third of the 20th) in party nominating conventions whose members were chosen exclusively (or, toward the end of the period, overwhelmingly predominantly) by insiders at the state parties. Primaries were introduced by some states in the late 19th Century but didn't become the norm until after 1968, as a response first within the Democratic Party to the controversy over the nomination of Eugene McCarthy by Democratic insiders, and just after that a reaction by the Republican Party to Democrats opening up their nominating process.
And yes, I am definitely biased.
It may also suggest that they see things differently than you do, and don't believe that they have voted for poisoned water.
> You can certainly argue the polarization of US/ democratic politics in the time of the Internet has led to one side adopting a nihilism where they would prefer to die living "The way things were" than accept inclusive change.
I think that's an extremely reductionist, and honestly objectively false characterization of what's happened. And it is that very perspective that has caused them to do this in the first place. These people had real and genuine concerns that were not being addressed by anyone other than Trump.
Globalization hollowed out the middle of the country for the benefit of the coasts. This has been more or less the explicit economic agenda of the last 30 years. We can certainly debate whether this has been a net positive for the world, but there is no debate that it has been a net negative for the middle states in the US that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.