So I don’t disagree with the statement that candidate selection is a huge problem, or that it was ever thus. It’s not a new idea. “I don’t care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating” is a William Tweed quote (he was the boss of the Tammany Hall political machine in NY from 1857-1871).
At the same time we’re clearly seeing the quality of candidates tick up. Last time the left had a bunch of charismatic leaders who could communicate they had to shoot most of the talent and intentionally left behind a bunch who were mediocre or worse. I’m hopeful that we might be turning a corner here.
I guess I just think that politicians are heavily incentivized to care about the opinions of people who a) vote consistently in significant numbers or b) could give them the money they need to buy reach. I think the only viable route to power in the US is through having a large left wing block that always votes, in both the general election and in the primaries.
I get how someone could see it differently, but that doesn’t make it less wrong headed and counter productive. Meanwhile I’m 95% sure that Sabo is just a pure troll whose only goal is to torment well meaning people on this site. For a guy whose side of the political spectrum I’m on I agree with him on just about nothing.
This is why people who claim they’re voting because of taxes are full of shit. A rational person motivated by self interests doesn’t vote at all. They just don’t want to admit the real reason they’re voting (taking our country back) and give some BS excuse instead (sweet $20/week tax cut).
The economist’s explanation was posted upthread. Cliffs: making the effort to go vote is a cost and the EV benefit of voting is approximately zero, from the perspective of self-interest.
Because the probability of your vote being the pivotal vote is so small that the expected value of voting minus the cost of voting is almost always negative. Cost of voting would include things such as gas driving to the polls, time, effort, etc. So the rational voter motivated by self interests (i.e. an entirely selfish person) would never vote.
A rational person motivated by their self interests is a very simple model. It’s used in game theory because it makes the mathematics simple enough to solve. But it doesn’t reflect how people actually vote.
So my point is there are people who claim they’re a rational voter motivated by self interests like they’re some kind of Adam Smith. But you do the math and you see, if this were true, they wouldn’t be voting at all. It’s like saying voting is a smart way to save money. It’s absurd. Meaning they’re either idiots or they’re lying. An example of someone like this is awval.
Poopypants is 100% right actually. Jesus that’s a great argument. And it might actually work on the really selfish ones. Make this argument at people on our side and I’ll cut you lol.
Like as often happens with things propagandic, this is all turned inside out and backwards,
What is as propaganda pejoratively derided as “apathy” y/o “lazy” is actually nothing of the sort. It’s just people using their common sense to realize that “the probability of your vote being the pivotal vote is so small that the expected value of voting minus the cost of voting is almost always negative”. This is blindingly obvious to those who care to open their eyes.
It’s up to the powers that be, and must be an integral part of any successful GOTV campaign, to make a positive argument that the above fact either isn’t “true” (a strategy of dishonesty) or doesn’t “matter”. Not the other way around.
So to continue the story of how UnStuckers literally chose trolling over GOTV-ing, let’s examine the case of my dad. My 91yo dad is a lifelong donkey lover who has been registered to vote since before I was born. Alas, now he suffers from Alzheimers. Now, I obviously DGAF about his donkey vote counting… but I care intensely about my dad’s health, and because of the dementia, his engagement in anything, it doesn’t matter what, is important.
So, I’ve kept that election trash together, and placed it consciously where he would see it, and he has engaged with it… as in picking it up and trying to puzzle out WTF this trash is here for… several times. So this is truly and literally an example where voting objectively works. Yay !!!1!
But, among other things, the whole envelope in an envelope, and which one to sign, something he’s done for decades here in CA, is simply too complicated for him now. If we was to actually cast that ballot he’d have needed assistance with the mechanics.
I left that decision up to my fellow UnStuckers. My fellow Unstuckers valued trolling more highly.
Well, that’s the first honest attempt at GOTV that any UnStuckers have made so far this entire POTUS BOWL. Let’s see if any other UnStuckers wanna stop trolling for just a minute… and add to this list.
I guess so. If you created an equation for all the pluses and minuses involved, the numbers are all so close to zero that I don’t really have any strong feelings about it. If he only votes for POTUS in CA (ignore confounding propositions), there is literally zero cost, so do whatever you think is good for your Dad. If you were in a swing state, I guess you have some plusses and minuses to weigh.
If he had voted, it would have been the straight donkey tix on down the line. In SD Co the local offices aren’t clearly labelled “donkey”/“elephant”, and in CA the props aren’t either. He’d proly have had to punt on those… but you never know, he might still be able puzzle the animals out of the endorsements.
See, now this is piss-poor GOTV.
It ignores the whole concept of Voter’s Paradox mentioned above. I’m your GOTV target. You know that I know about this concept. But still… you deny the very concept of opportunity cost (“literally zero cost”), and you make an argument that there’s an actionable difference between winning the lotto 12 days in a row -vs- 13 days in a row (“swing state”).
Of course, horses for courses. This might be great GOTV for a target that has never heard of this whole Voters Paradox concept.
ETA: this wasn’t directed at your particular response, as you stated I should do what I think is best for my dad as the overriding concern. I’m discussing the above after comment in isolation, as that’s the general case.
