This one got a lot less traction than that other one. Which is a shame, 'cuz it's worth reading.
I voted earlier today. First time in my life. About 50 seats on the ballot, and around 10 of them (mostly local judicial seats) have republicans running unopposed. The libertarian party has several people on the ticket, and I voted for them when I could, instead of republicans, 'cuz at least there's a chance they're socially progressive, right?
Yeah, I gotta prep to do that next go 'round. I've got two cats, so that's at least two seats. I was in a bit of a hurry because there was a ~20 minute line of people behind me, but now I know the interface. And on that note, I'd rather there be a literal paper trail instead of solely electronic tallying. Just to clarify, is your cat separate from the specter of communism, a jewish-sounding-villain-like name that I am about to google, and a club sandwich? p.s. I'm bumping the shit outta this post until Tuesday, probably
My cat is indeed separate from the specter of communism (like all cats, he's a monarchist), yog-sothoth (different speces) and club sandwiches (though he always steals the bacon if I leave one unattended).
I found some fried okra from last night's dinner on the floor this morning. Two suspects/cats
I donated money to a democratic candidate many years ago. I don't remember who. It was probably one of the presidential candidates in 2004. I've gotten four text messages to remind me to vote, and I assume the missed call from a local (but not so local as to be spam) was the same. I'm going to vote, and I was going to vote even if they hadn't bugged me. In 2016 when I answered my home intercom and the person introduced themselves as being from the DNC I replied "yes I'm going to vote, yes I'm voting for Clinton, Feingold, and Pocan, yes I'm registered, yes I'm registered at my current polling location, yes I have a valid state ID with this address." "Oh. Ok." They'd bugged me so much I knew their routine. I also think they wanted me to buzz them in so they could knock on my neighbor's doors. The people who aren't voting aren't the ones the party is calling. It's everybody else. I wish they'd stop bugging me.
I canvassed for Kerry in 2004. We were instructed to hit a neighborhood that had clearly been hit far too many times already as a number of people would answer the door with "you people again?" followed by admonishment that they were now thinking of voting Republican just to spite us. I think it's a lot easier to preach to the choir, so much so that we do it well past the point where they resent the sermon. My legislative district has a Facebook page... Run by the daughter of my state representative. And it's been so full of bile and hate that I'm really hoping she loses so I can say I voted for her opponent despite the cash from Monsanto... Simply because her posse be bitchez.
What kills me the most is that people who don't vote because they feel disenfranchised by their choices, or the system, are literally casting the strongest vote possible for that system. Like, the not getting to bitch if you don't vote argument is kinda funny and true and all, but the folks who rail against our system while leading the fucking pack in propping it up and perpetuating it by not voting...they absolutely kill me. Nothing says "idiot" like being one of the primary causes for that which you hate.
You're missing the point. Bernie Sanders offered options to the working class American. He was someone willing to appeal to regular people and stand up to corporations from the beginning. On top of that he didn't beat around the bush when it came to socialist ideals and was pushing for free education from the very start. The Democratic party did everything they could to not allow him to gain the platform he needed to succeed in the mainstream. Yes they are a private party, they (The rich white neo-liberals who fund the party) wanted Hillary, and they got Hillary. Bernie represented liberal populism. Trump despite his shortcomings and blatant lies was conservative populism. People like Hillary stand in the same camp Mitt Romney stood in 2012: Out of touch rich elite who could barely pretend to give a damn. When Bernie was shot in the water many of his supporters who were regular working class people were not going to settle with the status quo and rather have someone who disrupts the system. And disrupt he did. I voted for Hillary. Frankly at the time Hillary had a worse record was worse than Trumps when it came to the rights of people like myself. Seeing as she had a hand in pushing for the current system of detaining people of color in order to fill for profit prisons. Though you would be right in thinking she's grabbed less pussys and has had less interactions with Russian escorts. I voted for her, what else could I do. But I know she was barely a better choice than Trump. Let's not kid ourselves - people wanted change and they voted for change. No one said they wanted the safe choice, working class people have voted the safe choice for a while now and their situations has only gotten worse. Maybe middle class folks can't see this, maybe they don't want to see that they benefit from this stability. I don't know, but it's clear that it's getting worse and the working people who are getting payed shit are force to deal with corrupt money grubbing rich snobs or the LARPING oil barons it's not much of a choice. Trump offered populism, did he deliver I don't know and I doubt it. But Hillary was clearly adopting the ideas of Bernie's version of populism too late in the election cycle to fool anyone. The Democratic party showed it's true colors the last election cycle, it's sad to say but their best quality and highest aspirations is being better than the republicans. Now with Trump drowning the bar even lower I'm worried that the state of affairs will get much worse and the working people won't fall for this shit any longer.
Attitudes like this are the reason for #walkaway. Stop calling everyone these extreme names if they don’t agree with you. Once I stopped watching the daily show every day and actually opened my eyes, I realized I (liberals) was the one who was actually brainwashed, not the conservatives like I had believed for so long.
Because I thought I was like minded to most liberals but every time I tried to discuss anything they immediately insulted my intelligence, or called me a racist nazi etc. plus #metoo and #believewomen ran a false accusation truck over my family and I. Just your statement says it all. I’ve never been on any extreme. I was a moderate liberal. Believed in health care for all, pro choice, etc. but liberals attacked me so hard that I started looking at the other side and they seemed to make a lot more sense to me. And we’re much kinder and rational when I disagreed with them. I still believe in health care (although as a mentally and physically fit young person who makes healthy life choices, I’m starting to wonder if it’s fair for me to have to shoulder an equal percentage of the obesity crisis as someone who drinks 3 cokes a day and smokes cigs). I still believe that women should have a choice (but, within reason, and not necessarily fully paid for by taxpayers). I’d just vote conservative now for sure as every time I try to have a rational discussion, liberals almost immediately go to an extreme and call me a racist/sexist moron. I also started watching full clips of people like tucker Carlson (instead of just the 10 seconds Trevor Noah shows). The left always shows a 10 second clip of conservatives and manipulates viewers to believe that person is some kind of homophobic, racist monster. When I started watching the whole clip I realized the left was actually the one manipulating me and that a lot of the conservatives they were targeting actually seemed quite reasonable/rational/polite/etc.
So it doesn't sound like you changed your opinions much, just decided that you agreed more with the conservatives you talked to more than the liberals you talked to, and like Tucker Carlson more than Trevor Noah. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't a racist/sexist moron, but the remaining options are (1) you are talking to an idiot, you picked the wrong liberal to talk to, or (2) you have such fundamentally different assumptions that rationality doesn't matter. In response to (1) - if the first person to engage is an idiot, don't judge everyone else as an idiot too. Try not talking politics on platforms that encourage idiocy. Also, if you aren't talking to a troll, 99 times out of a hundred the conversation belongs in category (2). About (2) - We can rationally talk about euclidean geometry if we agree to start by assuming that straight lines are straight and flat planes are flat. But if we don't agree on assumptions and try to have a rational argument anyway, we will end up calling each other morons and idiots because one of us might be brilliantly explaining Euclid's proofs while the other proves them all nonsense with the assumptions of hyperbolic geometry. Politics isn't about rational discussion. It is about assumptions. Assumptions about who is important, and when, and why. Assumptions about who yields when there are conflicting rights.every time I try to have a rational discussion, liberals almost immediately go to an extreme and call me a racist/sexist moron.
What can I, a person the ages 18 to 29 demographic, who is apparently in the 35% bloc of voters, do to convince my peers to vote? I've been trying to host a voting party, but honestly, that's gained approximately no traction despite promises of pizza, beer, and my company (har-har).But unfollowing electoral politics won’t make it disappear. And our political system will only grow more dangerous without your voice in its ear. So if you’re among the 65 percent of those ages 18 to 29 who plan to sit out the midterms, please consider the following five reasons to go to the polls.
I feel like a lot of people don’t vote because they feel like they they need to like everything the politician they vote for wants which is so wild to me. If you want to agree with everything a politician wants then get off your ass and become a politician ffs. It doesn’t help that people often act like you should regret your vote if a poltician does one thing you don’t like. I think it comes from romanticizing past political figures as if they did nothing wrong. Similar to the “good old day’s” mentality.
It's kind of analogous to a relationship. You don't need to, and won't, like everything about your partner. How can you expect anything different of your politician?
I think that's the problem exactly: "there's nobody good out there for me, therefore I'd rather be single" as if "single" was a choice when it comes to the city/state/nation you live in. You can't opt out of the rules, the money is going to be spent, and civics fundamentally belongs to the people who care the most. Chris Gregoire beat Dino Rossi by 129 votes. Al Franken beat Norm Coleman by 200 votes. In both cases that's like a single senior class spread across an entire state as far as margin. And those are state races. If you're voting for a city ballot measure on an off year, yours might be one of 500 votes. Want kids to have textbooks? Well, it's coming out of property taxes, which are paid by old people, who always vote. The people who just finished using a social studies textbook that still talks about North Vietnam? Yeah, they're waiting for Mr. Right. And that's why their kids will also learn that the US must prevail in North Vietnam. Because of the Domino Theory.
Yup, I’ve yet to figure out a way to get people to understand this because they normally just shoot back that I’m telling them to settle for the lesser evil instead of accept reality as it has always been. The amount of people who literally crumble when things don’t go perfectly according to plan is ridiculous and it’s those same people who don’t want to vote for fear of being let down.
That's frustrating. One of the tacks I've taken is to point out that if they don't vote, they don't get to gripe about the outcome and that if you don't participate in democracy you can't expect to be a part of one. That at least tends to make the people I'm around feel guilty for not voting. And really, it's kind of amazing to find young people in Seattle who don't vote. I mean, the Stranger makes it stupid easy.
My ballot had 38 seats with more than one person running, and one school tax measure.
If you were a resident of the City of Seattle, you would vote for about fifteen different things on that list. Federal, State, City(all cities have different measures), legislative district (which may or not match your city but probably doesn't), as well as school district and fire district. It's routine that the ballot you're voting on does not match the ballot the next street over is voting on. This was tricky in the days before the internet. How do I pick a municipal court judge? But now you just google both assholes and look for the one who wants to "make X great again" and vote against him SO HARD
That's where I'm at. Trying to shame people on Instagram because I know they look at my "content"...that's a good cheat sheet! Going to have to share it, plus, it's pretty similar to have my ballot turned out after taking the time to read the entire voter pamphlet.
Badged not because I agree with everything in the article, but because I want the headline to linger on the public front page as long as possible.
Direct Democracy always ends in genocide with a hop skip through totalitarianism. You won't like getting what you're promoting
As an under-30 who votes I still don't agree with all the premises of the article. Especially the whole "lesser of two evils" line. I don't have any love for republicans and I basically consider libertarians to be "diet republicans" but I still have some major points of contention with democrats and I feel like this "just swallow your pride and vote for them anyway so the other guy doesn't get in" rhetoric is harmful towards affecting longterm change. What can a voter like me do to actually "punish" a democratic candidate for corruption or other problematic behavior when there's a slew of people willing to give said candidate carte blanche just to keep someone with an (R) beside their name from taking that office?
Show up to district meetings and canvas for candidates you agree with?What can a voter like me do to actually "punish" a democratic candidate for corruption or other problematic behavior when there's a slew of people willing to give said candidate carte blanche just to keep someone with an (R) beside their name from taking that office?
I mean yeah supporting the ones you agree with through money or volunteering is a good start. But say some candidate you have an issue with that you feel pretty strongly about wins the democrat primary. Like a guy who promised last time around he'd pass legislation to regulate pollution by businesses more strictly and then when he took office he voted yes on a tax break for those same businesses after being lobbied by them pretty hard. Are folks supposed to ignore corruption from their own party and vote straight-ticket anyway even though re-electing this guy is tacitly telling him that his corruption isn't a dealbreaker for you?
I think the thing most "voters" forget is that they're selecting executive positions and/or figureheads for a constellation of lobbyists and special interests and that all stakeholders in the process have to deal with an ever-changing assortment of needs, wants, opinions and proficiencies. Here's my local guy. Walked up on my lawn, nervous as hell, and asked for my vote. I asked him why I should vote for him over the incumbent and he gave me a pretty nice off-the-cuff summary of his positions. I shook his hand and told him he had my vote. Most of the vocal mutherfuckers in my district? lost their shit over the fact that he "took money from the building industry". As in $700 from "NORTHWEST WASHINGTON BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL". Out of $80k. Which pretty much illustrates that people are mostly there to be pissed off at someone and end up fishing around for an ex post facto reason. Nobody is ever going to be perfect. Ever. At the end of the day, it does you no good to demand perfection where "better" is still good.
I'm not saying demanding perfection is a reasonable position to hold and I don't generally expect my politicians to be flawless paragons of incorruptibility. I'm saying that when a politician you support DOES screw up in too big of a way for you to feel comfortable to continue supporting them, the "Well he's still better that Jim Whats-His-Face over there with WRONG LETTER next to his name" line that your fellow party voters will try to feed you is a harmful way of thinking. Straight-ticket voting makes it easier for members of both parties to both engage in corruption and go unpunished when they do, because they know at the end of the day that the people voting for them care more about what side of the fence they're on than what they've actually done.
So if I understand you correctly, basically my recourse as a person who generally supports a party but is unhappy with a particular candidate running for said party, is to support my token favorite until as far as the primary, at which point if I don't bite the bullet and vote for my last-choice candidate in the general I become "part of the problem". This kind of thinking is exactly why I don't consider myself a democrat despite supporting the party's positions on most topics. I don't like the idea of being told I owe anyone a vote. Either I support a candidate on merit or I don't. And I'm not willing to cast a vote for someone I've chosen not to support for ethical reasons. If not voting for a corrupt democrat makes me a party traitor, I'd just as soon not be a party member at all.
Five comments deep your response to thoughtful discourse, game theory and the realities of representative democracy in the United States is putting words in my mouth, insisting you were right all along, and defending your god-given right to take your ball and go home. Why go through the exercise if you were simply looking for an excuse to express your dudgeon in the first place?
I've asked more than once what my recourse is as a voter for one party when a party candidate I strongly disapprove of is running. You have yet to offer me a response that seems to say more than "Suck it up, buttercup". Which I don't find particularly satisfying of an answer and is pretty much the attitude I was trying to call attention to as problematic in the first place.
That's unfair, unrepresentative of this discussion and unnecessarily antagonistic. You said you "didn't agree with" the "lesser of two evils line." I didn't engage you on that: there's a big difference between "I don't agree with" and "I want to be convinced of." You clearly don't want to be convinced of anything. You asked what you could do about it. I've given you several responses of nuance and diversity. Never once have I said "suck it up, buttercup" so putting it in quotes is factually incorrect (and rhetorically weak). That you don't find my answer "satisfying" and that somehow this is about my "attitude" indicates how little interest you had in any sort of discussion as to why there's far more reason to vote against your personal preferences than you care to admit. But by all means, keep not voting. It is, after all, your constitutional right.
I DO vote per the first half of the first sentence of my first comment in this chain, "As an under-30 who votes..." I just don't agree that voting straight party is always the best move. And you must have missed the part right before the quote you quoted where I wrote SEEMS TO SAY. As in, you might not literally be saying that but that's how the tone of what you did write comes off to me. Bold of you to talk about unnecessarily antagonistic when you seem to like talking down to people an awful lot.
Eventually, the wisest learn that you may as well vote just in case, and so no one gets on your back about it... but to never expect much.
This is true for national tickets but local and state-level you can totally sway the outcome. I think that's part of the problem - nobody gives a shit until we're voting for president when simple things like "do I want my ambulances to be run by a private for-profit corporation" are things that directly impact your community. There's also the "old people constantly vote against libraries" problem which young people are uniquely positioned to solve as well as the "I would like to starve my local school district to give rich people vouchers to pay for their Montessori programs" that can be overturned simply by having renters outvote homeowners. They want you to despair. Despair and tenaciousness are about to be their only weapons. 
No, it's become too big to be influenced even at the local level. Seattle elections alone seeing 7-8 figure investments in campaigning. All of the states you mention see 6 figure campaigns. If you lack public influence and any other useful job skills you might as well not bother with the political theater system.
Give them something to vote for. Other than Bernie, nobody is lighting a fire in anyone's shorts. "Disaffected Young Americans" should be forming their own political party.
Never confuse a hypothetical with an actual. We're talking about a made-up political party in a made-up situation running for made-up office. The probability fan stretches out past the horizon. When I lived in New Mexico a third of the local offices went to the Greens most of the time and that was just fine. I voted for a lot of them. But you don't ever say anything about anything but the fucking presidency and I'n'I know that the principle reason Bill Clinton was president is a guy named Ross Perot, and the principle reason George W Bush got elected is a guy named Ralph Nader. It's astonishing how often, how specifically and in what a concrete way I am forced to hector you for being a political dumbass and what filters through your know-nothing reality distortion field is "I only vote Democrat."
➽ The Democratic Party is a deeply flawed institution, complicit in economic inequality in the U.S. and in unjust wars overseas. But if millennials had voted at the same rate as our parents in 2016, in all probability hundreds of thousands of longtime legal U.S. residents wouldn’t be in danger of losing the right to live here, thousands of child migrants wouldn’t have suffered the trauma of “family separation,” the Supreme Court wouldn’t have approved Republican efforts to disenfranchise nonwhite voters in Ohio and Texas or undermined reproductive rights in California, the Education Department would not be restricting access to federal-student-loan forgiveness while relaxing oversight of predatory for-profit colleges, the EPA would not be comporting itself as a lobbying arm of the fossil-fuel industry, the Treasury would not have forfeited hundreds of billions of dollars to America’s wealthiest taxpayers, and everyone the world over would have been able to continue ignoring the existence of the American president’s Twitter account. yes.3. Voting for the lesser of two evils is great — that way you get less evil.