!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Why do polticalitcians cling to the idea that these voters can't be reached?
They don't. At least not the politicians who tend to do well. Reaching people who had never voted in any previous election was the central strategy to both Obama's and Trump's campaigns, and those were the two most successful electoral politicians in national American politics of the past 2 decades.
I’ll tell you why I didn’t used to vote. I worked too many hours and was emotionally exhausted all of the time. I didn’t have hobbies or interests or energy to do anything else. My personal life was a complete mess. I didn’t have friends or relationships either. I ate poorly and didn’t exercise. All I literally did was work. I suspect a lot of people were in my shoes.
The bullshit requirement for the vote to be on a Tuesday.
Vote should be on a weekend.
My state allows for mail in voting. My problem was that I was always stuck in survival mode. I couldn’t take care of my basic needs, there was no room for civic duties. It’s like I was in a trance. The problem is having to work too many hours, plus commute.
They do. That's why voter suppression is such a big factor in every election.
From my own impression as a member of a small political party in my own country who joined not out of tribalism but simply because they seemed to mostly want the same things as I do, party members live in a bubble of people who are heavilly into politics and understand the importance of politics, whilst the leadership specifically in addition to this are also mostly surrounded by generally unquestioningly hero worship from the common party members plus they tend to have quite limited life experience outside the party as they've joined it as young adults (maybe when they were at university and involved in student movements) and it and its internal environment have always been a large part of their lives.
Those people usually see the supporters of their political adversaries in the same way as fans of a sports club see fans of other clubs, and don't really "get" the point of view of people who don't vote at all.
Polticalitcians?
Polt-i-cal-it-cians.
You're asking why the politicians don't reach out to the 34%. Meanwhile for the past 10 years politicians have been ranting about dead people voting. A statistic that is blatently false, and has NEVER shown any significant amount of votes coming from dead people. They did find some confusion when old people voted early by mail, but died before election day. But those numbers were a rounding error at best.
So maybe these politicians are thinking "Well we can't reach the non-voters because they're dead!"
And then they go on fox news and argue about frogs being gay, or whatever bullshit to distract from actual issues.
Meanwhile, Trump won with only 28% of registered voters. The GOP is the minority, our political/voting system is by design.
Most non-voters don't hold significantly different beliefs than the voting population. In non-competitive states, it means motivating them to vote is unlikely to tip the scales. Why bother tipping the results from 60% to 55% by spending millions on it? Better to allocate those funds to a 53% to 48% potential flip.
In battleground states they do try to reach these people.
I don't think that your assumptions are true. Non-voters tend to be more progressive than voters, because conservatives vote religiously out of a sense of duty and responsibility, and progressives vote when they feel like it.
This is a lever that moves in two directions. Voter suppression is a very real thing that happens in every American election. It's practiced by conservative candidates for exactly the asymmetry I mention above.
I mean, non-voters aren't much more progressive really. They're more likely to be independents (in the US at least). See:
They do skew a bit more D, but not massively so. They're also largely non-white, less well educated and poorer. It's a bit of a toss-up whether any of those demographics skew R or D.
I don't really see much evidence that they're more progressive, more centrist at best really. Although I suppose if you flatten political beliefs on a 1-dimensional axis, that does mean more progressive on average.
Do note that this differs per state, and voter turnout is also correlated with general results skewing harder in a certain direction. Complexities all around!
What do you mean "cling to the idea they can't be reached?" A huge portion of political spending goes towards trying to increase turnout (of the people likely to vote for you).
Could make it mandatory like Australia.
Of course, many in the political space are trying to limit voting, so..
Americans would cry about mandatory voting. World's biggest snowflakes, I'm sure if that was proposed they'd just say "ugh but the constitution, freedom and stuff, stupid libs "
Literally saw some loser bragging about "his right to not vote" the other day. Every single one of these people is a fucking tool.
I don't think it will ever even happen because the winning party may just always think, "Good, don't vote; that allowed us to win more easily."
I'm being put in a difficult situation here because I'm gonna have to go ahead and defend the American "snowflakes." When it comes to interpreting the phrase "free elections" I think all democracies or close enough to that (which therefore includes the US) chose to say free means you're also free not to participate. Except for the Aussies. And while I'm not an American snowflake, I'm still a snowflake because I agree with that interpretation. It wouldn't just ruffle feathers in the US if mandatory election participation was prescribed. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Horse = voter, drink = vote. And I don't think the Aussie governments of the last two decades have proven to be superior because they're backed by a larger voter base. Remember the guy who ate raw onions?
You don't actually have to fill out the ballot. You can tell the voting officer that you decline it, you can write profanity on it, or you can vote for your dog.
It's a minor civic duty. Much less onerous than jury duty, lol
And you should be free to do that by not having to interact with someone
your options are shite and I refuse them all is a valid vote, why make it harder for someone to choose that than necessary?
your options are shite and I refuse them all is a valid vote, why make it harder for someone to choose that than necessary?
The only way that's communicated is by officially declining the ballot. And I agree with the other commenter that it should be easier to do this.
By not voting, you're communicating "They're all fine; I can't be assed to pick".
why make it harder for someone to choose that than necessary?
Ironically, that's THE main reason for people not voting.
I never miss a chance to vote and I don't advocate for others not to vote, but I understand how some people would balk at overcoming a shitload of hurdles (including but not limited to several hours in lines surrounded by too many people, difficulties getting a valid ID etc) in order to vote for the lesser evil, which is still an evil.
If you make it easier to vote, including without having to have onerous interactions with people, mandatory voting isn't such a hassle and neither is voluntary voting.
Agreed. Even though I think voting is the right thing to do, forcing people to vote is an infringement on their freedom and I don’t think it’s justified.
When I think of the cost of that freedom it doesn't seem too steep.
People want all the benefits but none of the responsibility, IMO.
I definitely see your viewpoint though.
In the before times when we still had the rule of law, mandatory voting would almost certainly require an amendment to the constitution or else the Supreme Court would block it. Under current precedents the government generally can't compel political speech.
Personally I think mandatory voting is a bad idea. It will not make then suddenly care, they will just vote for lolrolfcopter party.
The US does a lot of bad things around voting, but it being on a workday is probably the biggest hurdle. Most other countries have it on a weekend or holiday. That means that most people can go vote and not have to chose between potentially getting fired and vote. Which, to no surprise mostly affects lower income voters.
Also combined with the witch hunt on mail in voting makes it very hard for lower income people to vote. Which is by design.
There is actually some evidence that musk was unfortunately successful at reaching some of these people. There was a lot of talk about "strange" ballots that only voted for Trump and nothing else, usually called "bullet ballots." Well apparently part of musks outreach plan was getting to low propensity voters and telling them "don't worry if it's confusing, don't worry about knowing the candidates, the only thing we need is a vote for Trump and he'll fix everything."
It seems like it worked out for them... :(
The bullet ballots were such a statistical anomaly. They should have been investigated/double checked.
Because that would require a lot of work, and 99.99% of politicians are in it for the power and money. Not to actually help their constituents.
I guess that's fair and they know they're never going to be able to make good on the promises they make so those voters will only become entrenched and disaffected.
Because one party doesn't want them to vote and voter supression campaigns have become extremely powerful. And it goes beyond the beurocratic tactics like voter IDs. Apathy, cynicism, and distrust are also part of the right-wing propaganda. Opposition parties fight an uphill battle to engage more voters.
/thread
less people voting helps conservatives, thats why they use disenfranchisement, voter suppression and gerrymandering in the states, plus the all the propaganda "your vote doesnt matter" is drilled into peoples heads.
voter suppression is designed to discourage voting as well.
I have sympathy for non-voters in the US. Not so much out of principle but because of how it is done. Voting takes place on a Tuesday. That's because in ye olden days you had to allow people to attend church on Sunday before making the trip on horseback to participate in the election. That's a cute tradition but clashes with the way the economy works today. People are very dependent on their low-wage jobs that they can be fired from easily. If you're working two of those jobs to make ends meet, you may not have the "luxury" to skip work to go and vote on a normal weekday. That luxury often includes having to fill in a booklet of stuff that's on the ballot. You're not just voting on a president, a senator, or a congressperson. You may be asked your option on a plebiscite, a judge, a sheriff, a school board, etc. It is overinflated in my view and explains long slow moving lines at ballot stations that you don't often see elsewhere. And that's after a possibly Kafkaesque registration process to be eligible in the first place or to get mail-ins in some states. It is almost designed to keep people away. Maybe you're taking these structural problems as something "politicians cling to."
Make election day a public holiday that forces businesses who are open anyway to allow all their employees to go and vote.
A lot of those low-wage workers don’t get federal holidays off. Ever go to a liquor store on Independence Day? Or a restaurant on Veterans Day? Or fill up your gas tank on Washington’s Birthday?
A better system is universal early and mail-in voting with as few impediments as possible. If you need to require identification, that ID needs to be free. There should be no monetary barriers to voting.
I don't mind your suggestion. I think universal mail-ins are a good idea. At the same time, I have an inkling that you didn't read my comment all the way to the end.
I guess not! The hazards of splitting attention between reading Lemmy any other things in life
For [email protected] ; I think the key words are "that force businesses who are open anyway"
Perhaps it shouldn't be a public holiday but some other law that forces (half) a day off on that day.
Reaching means addressing their issues. Addressing one person issues will probably conflict with other person issues. Wich mean that a choose have to be made on to who represent.
Some people are easier to address than other. Some people are more exigent to their representatives than others. Making it not wort it trying to address them.
It's important to mention that just by "mentioning" people in your campaign those people are not going to vote you. You need to do specific politics that solve the problems they may have. Which is not easy and most of the times it opposes what other people want you to do.
maybe they just consider those people successfully suppressed
Because that group likely thinks both options are terrible and think it's a pointless waste of time
Ultimately proven correct
Self fulfilling prophecy.
Because every time is someone's first time, and due to voter registration being necessary a zillion years before the actual vote, no one specifies that and runs "VOTE ON NOV N^TH^ " ads a week before the election day.
Being as they don't vote, they are technically not voters.
As others have said, this seems like an ill-formed question. Do you have reason to believe that politicians "cling to the idea that these voters can't be reached"?