|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:
This has more to do with the electoral college than almost anything else:  voter turnout are generally pretty high in competitive states, but lower in non-competitive states
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Condiv posted:those are the only outcomes because lesser evilism is rewarded with votes. you can't expect things to change if the lesser evil can always count on your vote as long as they're a hair away from the greater evil. that's why macron and co feel free to implement lepen's fascist policies. OTOH you can easily point out that anti-immigration sentiments are strong with the majority of the French electorate and Macron is simply carrying out their will, it's not the lesser of two evils so much as the French electorate getting exactly what they want. Which are anti-immigration policies without the overt fascist rhetoric overtures of Le pen. The real issue isn't "we are enabling centrists", the real problem is the "left" position has lost popularity and trust with the majority of the electorate.   
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Sounds convincing. Just one question. How did voting for Jill Stein in Florida in 2000 prevent the Overton window from being shifted towards evil? Ralph Nader dude, not stein
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:
the reason why dems voted for bush over nader is because of left-over party loyalty/registrations from pre-1964 days when the democrats were the segregationists and the south was 90% democrat. 2000 was still early enough in the game that a lot of voters in the south registered as dem and went for democratic blue-dog conservative candidates at the congressional level and Republicans at the presidential because their congressmen are further to the right. that ended sometime between 2010-2014
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which experts are listened to is highly subjective, and coincidentally when it comes to legislation that meaningfully interacts with corporate profits, the favored experts just so happen to have massive conflicts of interest or in the case of economics aren't expert at anything except bullshitting corporate propaganda. while this is true a lot of the time too often ideologues on both the left and the right has taken this to mean that things like "numbers" and "reality" doesn't matter and proceed to enact fringe policies which drives whatever they are managing off a cliff i.e Boris Johnson's "people had enough of experts" prior to brexit Typo fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Feb 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:But the thing is it's not that people have had "enough" of experts, its the fact that experts have been so commonly surprised by things that they should have seen coming that all trust has been eroded in the idea of expertise. I mean look at banks and bankers, every time there is a run or a variety of things start going wrong it turns out the warning signs have been in place for years but the people whose job it was to pay attention didn't because they could get more money in the short term and because they are experts they will never see the inside of a prison cell. Sure and that's not always a good phenomenon: you could point out that maybe it's a good thing if the electorate no longer trust bankers or finance, but then you also have people using this exact same set of logic on doctors and turn to alternative medicine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Except that that logic can be confronted by appealing to materialistic concerns (at least where I am from) by pointing out poo poo like the NHS. Having an accessibility of a service/system both reduces its mystique and increases it's power to push back against dangerous hogwash. The way to get people to trust systems is to have the system generally work in favour of all people. The way to get the system to be distrusted is to it appear to work for the benefit of a few people. C.F. How benefits are framed over here as it being for "scroungers" instead of people who are suffering. OTOH in 2008 alternative medicine was a 4.5 billion pound industry in the UK, an increase of 50% from 2003, and if the trend continued it's probably even greater today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/alternative-medicine/3355120/Complementary-medicine-seeking-out-alternatives.html quote:And I think the problem is more that when you position yourself as a moral exampler and the richest and best nation on the planet it is good to not have hundreds of your own citizens dying to despair and guns and poverty. You can claim to be improving or changing or what have you and people will be more considerate of your flaws, but when you posit "this is the greatest nation" you are going to get pushback from that hyperbole.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:in that when they win elections, they attempt to implement policy to be fair both the republicans and the democrats have this problem, see the failure of Obamacare repeal or the fact that the republican congress getting a fraction of the legislation you would expect from them considering they hold all 3 branches of government and have the Koch brothers barking at them to repeal social security or medicare or the white nationalists yelling at them to pass deport browns now act the fundamental issue is that both parties are actually quite divided internally, you can see this manifest in multi-party parliamentary systems where the politics is dysfunctional due to inter-party fighting (i.e merkel) in the two party US system means the fighting is done internally within the parties instead
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 23:02
|
|