Comment by macspoofing | Hacker News Reader

Comment by macspoofing | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>What I'm not okay with is the time commitment required.

I understand your position but this is way overstated. Anything worth doing is going to cost you time and effort and streamlining it will make it lose some important intrinsic property of it.

Approximately 50% of American households carry credit card debt. Do you know why? Because if you truly want something, you'll find a way to get it even if it means financing it will cost you 3x-5x more than just saving up for it. I do not believe that the vast majority of people who care about caucuses would not find a way to attend a caucus.

>It creates a significant discrepancy between those who are privileged enough

I will never buy into this flawed notion of 'privilege' that misinforms more than it explains. Everyone is busy, especially when it comes to things they barely care about. If someone cares about caucuses and primaries they will get engaged and find a way to attend. Evangelicals that care about their faith will find a way to tithe 10% of their income, go to Church EVERY Sunday (not just once every 4 years), and get involved in Church activities. Practicing Orthodox Jews have very onerous stipulations on what they can and cannot do in their daily life, but they care about their faith and therefore they find a way to do those things - regardless of their income and wealth and privilege.

Going to a caucus once every 2 or 4 years on a Saturday isn't a reasonable barrier for those that care. Worrying about those that don't care enough to make time isn't improving things. Your time would be better spent advocating to those people to CARE enough to attend, not destroying the beautiful chaos in order to HOPE it attracts those people into coming out.

Do you find getting an ID to be a significant burden? Probably not.

There exist people for whom this is a real barrier.

Do you have a job that allows you to take a day off work if you need to? Probably.

There exist people for whom this is a real barrier.

Do you have a job that doesn't require you to work on weekends? Probably.

There exist people for whom this is a real barrier.

It's hard to ask someone to just CARE more, if caring more means they might be fired from the job that puts food on their table.

I'm sorry I used your trigger-word "privilege". I do want this to be a safe space for everyone to participate, so next time I'll avoid that word. For my previous post, you can substitute the word "economically able" instead of the word "privileged", and the meaning should remain mostly the same.

I actually don't mind the additional barrier that caucuses create that deter the people that don't care that much. If two people are equally able to attend a caucus, and the activation energy of the caucus filters out the one that doesn't care that much, that seems good to me.

But I really very much do mind the additional barrier that caucuses create for the people that are not able to attend them due to their circumstances. If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem.

Well, nothing is black or white. It's always a trade-off. Destroy the intrinsic property of the system to trade for broader access. Is it worth it?

It makes me think of the Bitcoin scaling debate. Destroy the ease of running nodes for the ease of trading at low fees. Is it worth it?

In this case, I don't think the suggestion is for people to 'care' more. At the same time we also have to recognize that we can't accommodate for everyone's situation without destroying the fundamentals of the system itself. It's a balancing act. Where the line should be drawn is probably very subjective.

> It's always a trade-off

I agree with that. I personally find the trade-off to be unacceptable.

However, I can totally understand people that think the trade-off is worthwhile. I disagree, but very much understand and think a debate is merited.

I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.

>I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.

Well of course the trade-off exists. I never said it doesn't take effort to go out and caucus. It does. Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big.

So you aren't making any profound argument. What you're missing is the other side of the equation - it isn't just about the relative effort to do something, but more importantly the level of care that people have for that something. That is if people don't care about attending a political rally, they won't attend a political rally even if you remove every barrier you perceive there to be. We see it in elections all the time. For all the talk about structural barriers to voting, black turn out was a record high for Obama because black communities really cared about voting for Obama. Black turnout was not as high for Hillary, because she didn't have the same level of support from the black population.

When people care about something, they will find a way to engage.

> Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big.

I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote earlier, because this response still doesn't address my actual concern:

I actually don't mind the additional barrier that caucuses create that deter the people that don't care that much. If two people are equally able to attend a caucus, and the activation energy of the caucus filters out the one that doesn't care that much, that seems good to me.

But I really very much do mind the additional barrier that caucuses create for the people that are not able to attend them due to their circumstances. If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem.

---

To reiterate my point: I am genuinely unconcerned even slightly about those you address in this post. My concern is still entirely unaddressed, except for being dismissed as not a problem or shifted to the alternate concern about people who can attend but choose not to.

>If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem.

Urgh. This is the same creative writing exercise that another poster here is engaging in. I'll tell you the same thing, I told him. You don't know that person. You don't know if that person exists. You don't know if that is actually a problem that affects even a tiny minority of would-be attendees. What you're doing is creating a caricature of working people and engaging in an imagination exercise of seeing how your caricatures would respond in hypothetical situations that don't actually exist ... because maybe you have no other connection to those working people? I don't know.

I don't know how to argue that. You created a scenario that doesn't exist. The best I can do is just say that you did that.

Me:

> I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.

You:

> I don't know how to argue that. You created a scenario that doesn't exist.

I don't think I just made this problem up.

https://www.kunr.org/post/what-rights-do-employees-have-cauc...

Anyway, I'm not going to debate whether such a person exists. If you think there exists no such person, we're not going to productively carry the conversation forward.

If you think there exists such people, but it's a small enough set that the merits of a caucus outweigh the disenfranchisement of that set, we can discuss that.

But if your argument is that flat out no such person exists, then we can stop discussing it.

>Anyway, I'm not going to debate whether such a person exists.

Of course, because you made up that person. You made up the problem. Can you quantify how many people are being prevented for caucusing because they can't take a day off? What are we talking about here, apart from imaginary situations?

>If you think there exists such people, but it's a small enough set that the merits of a caucus outweigh the disenfranchisement of that set, we can discuss that.

That is the argument. It's a big country with hundreds of millions of people. Lots of things are happening all the time. I'm sure a person broke their leg and couldn't caucus, or they found out they were pregnant and were distraught, or their mother recently died, or they couldn't take a day off work, or they don't care enough. So what?! There's an election every 2 years. There are local, state, and federal elections. If you miss one caucus because of life, it's not the end of the world, life happens. Go to the next one. Besides, it's a representative democracy, a single voter isn't dictating policy. Your neighbours and like-minded voters will be pushing for policies you care about. In Democracy, it takes a long time for people to be converted to a new position, so it takes years of grassroots organizing to enact change because every person has their own ideas.

Jesus Christ, you're making it seem like it's China where nobody is able to vote. Or as if it is a crime against humanity if a life event prevents some individual from participating at some political event - to the extent where we need to reform the entire system that worked well for hundreds of years. And by the way, life will happen no matter which way you redesign voting and democracy.

So, OP points out that maybe a commitment of one night every few years isn’t so unreasonable, and your response is to berate them for their privilege?

What alternative do you suggest?

Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state.

Berate is a strong word to describe what I read imo. I think it was more a suggestion to put one's self in another's shoes.

If you believe for example that a caucus is not too high a burden of voting for anyone in America because credit card debt exists, I personally guarantee to you that this is due either to a lack of experience in the struggle some Americans face, or to a lack of imagination.

If you actually wanna know, it's easy - check out "Evicted" from your local library.

OK, sorry, maybe I was confused -- we're talking caucuses weren't we? I definitely agree with that for voting at large, but I always thought the whole point of a caucus was the messy political "fun" of it all. (Disclaimer, I am not American.)

Anyways thanks for the reply, I am familiar with that book and these arguments. I just don't understand why they should apply to a caucus, which is once every few years, and mostly for more politically-involved folks by definition already.

If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability (as well as the accessibility resources necessary) to participate in a caucus.

Until we can achieve that kind of safety net, though, I think it's important that ALL forms of engaging with democracy are available to ALL Americans. The political parties get away with far too much shenanigans imo.

>If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability

"Time" and "financial stability" is not an absolute measure, but is relative to your level of 'care' about the issue. I don't have 'time' to visit someone I don't care about. I make time to visit someone I do. Someone of modest means who has to work many hours a week and raise kids, won't have time (or 'financial ability') to attend a political rally if they don't really care a lot about it. They WILL make the effort if they did. If they don't care about your political cause, but you go ahead and remove all the perceived barriers, they still won't care, and they will prioritize other things they care about over your political rally or caucus.

That's what you're missing here. You're under the impression that the reason why many people don't attend caucuses is that they aren't able to - that's not reality. As a counter-example, many many many people who have all the free time in the world and all the money in the world, also don't attend caucuses. Why is that?

> As a counter-example, many many many people who have all the free time in the world and all the money in the world, also don't attend caucuses. Why is that?

That the choice exists for others doesn't automatically mean it exists for all.

It should imply to you that there are reasons other than barriers that come out of your imagination that is preventing people from caucusing ... like they don't want to. They aren't interested.

Sure, I bet there are lots of people that aren't interested! Me, for example, and I'm rich as sin. I'd rather pick up trash on the side of the road with that time - and I do have ample free time.

Doesn't change the fact that there are still Americans that don't have that freedom. Though I wish we all did!

>Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state.

I dread the dystopia when you sent your party affiliation on your phone and you never even have to think about pesky things like engagement, and people, and politicians, and elections as your phone will be automatically be polled at election time for your vote.

This is a democratic dystopia.

To me, this is democracy: https://youtu.be/FRtp-ooeC3Q?t=139 - yelling, cheering, jeering, people in a common space, interacting with their neighbours, fired up!

> I personally guarantee to you that this is due either to a lack of experience in the struggle some Americans face, or to a lack of imagination.

Personally guarantee eh? I can personally guarantee you don't know what you're talking about. I noticed a tendency of a certain class of people, typically who grew up in an affluent household, who are deeply uncomfortable with making any statement that doesn't infantilize people of modest means or modest upbringing. Frequently they will also lecture others who are familiar with growing up poor, or in an immigrant ghetto in an immigrant household, as somehow ... not understanding what non-affluence looks like, perhaps because they themselves don't understand it and they lack the imagination to (as you put it).

I understand what growing up as a foreign-born immigrant in working-class immigrant household looks like, and it doesn't change my conclusion. If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time. In fact, they will be happy to. Sacrificing a little for something you care about is a spiritual experience.

> If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time.

This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision.

Spending a day at a caucus could mean more than "sacrificing a little." I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway? Oops, evicted and no income. Job hunting while homeless.

The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice.

Also, I disagree entirely with your premise that a caucus is what a democracy looks like. No consideration for mute or deaf constituents. No consideration for introverts. "But if they cared enough." Sure. And if people didn't do crime, there'd be no crime. The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote. We can sit on the sidelines and make pointless statements about the ethical inferiority of people that don't want to spend 8 hours screaming at eachother to get their vote registered, or, we can acknowledge reality and build our systems around it.

A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote.

>This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision.

No it's not. Don't strawman.

> I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway?

This is a good example of why it's so frustrating to debate this. You're engaging in creative writing and storytelling. You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired. You just made her up to buttress your point. Are there working single moms at caucuses - you bet there are. Caucus are also organized and run by caring activists who are sensitive to constituent's needs - do you think they don't attempt to be as accessible as they can? Is that a major issue that affects a significant portion of would-be attendees? You don't know, you just assume it is.

>Job hunting while homeless. The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice.

No kidding it isn't an actual choice, because you just made it up and put it us a false choice. Homelessness is not dominated by people looking for work and unable to find any (and for some reason not having access to various social programs) and therefore being prevented from attending a caucus meeting. Chronic, long-term homelessness is almost solely a result of drug addiction and/or mental illness.

>The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote.

More making things up. You don't know that. You have a stereotype of working people and you're using your imagination to think of all the ways your caricatures of working people may be shut out democracy. But you don't actually know if this in fact a real problem or just something you think is a real problem. And why wouldn't they be represented well by their neighbours if some specific individual had personal commitments that prevented them from attending?

I get why you're asking me to use my imagination - because you have no other connection to the people you purport to fight for.

>A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote.

Says who?

> You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired

I actually do - my own mom, when I was growing up. I'm talking about my experience.

But hey, don't believe me, here's a journalist that went ahead and got a couple families on the record that are in exactly the situation I just described: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25852784-evicted

> More making things up. You don't know that.

I do know that. That's the reality we live in. Make it easier to vote from home and more people vote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/letting-people-vote-a...

The state of American family finance is far more dire than you seem to be aware: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/half-of-americans-are-just...

> Says who?

Says me, with as much earnestness as you say with your desire for a caucus. Except my method, the evidence shows, franchises more Americans. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument by the way, you can say you prefer a caucus even though it would disenfranchise some Americans. I don't know if that exactly describes a democracy though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com