Voting in the United States: The Case for a Shift in Focus

[Lalaki]

I hope all American citizens 18 and older have or are going to use their right to vote today. If you don't agree with the two main candidates, vote third party! It is still important to get your voice heard.

Many people give reasons for not participating in the elections. One of the more noticeable ones run as follows:

"Many people still live in poverty each and every election cycle. Voting will not change this situation, no change will ever come."

This is understandable. The way we allocate our budget in the United States does not put as much focus on social welfare as it should. We still do not have many of the services seen in equally developed nations in Europe, East Asia, Oceania, etc. Some hypothesize that this is because public officials are influenced by lobbying, political action committees, and so on. And this is to a large extent true! However, I think that one very large reason that our representatives do not focus much on citizens in need is a surprising one. What is that? Our large focus on the middle class. That's what people running for office always emphasize, with concern for people who do not have much pushed to the side, so to speak.

I know that middle class Americans make up the majority of all voters. We as a group tend to vote for candidates that will best protect our interests. Us, who already have access to food, water, shelter, health care, probably a good school, etc. If we vote for our interests, our public officials will focus on that (with lobbying and PAC influence mixed in, regrettably). So I advocate that we shift our focus this next election to the poor. What exactly do I mean by that? Instead of looking for a champion of the middle class, we need to look for the champion of the poor. Instead of looking for who will cut taxes for the middle class, we need to look for who will use tax money in a more altruistic and compassionate way for lower class Americans. And instead of looking for who will focus on community projects in well off neighborhoods (alongside potential gentrification into struggling neighborhoods), we need to look for those who will dedicate public resources to raising up those from the bottom so that more people can become middle class.

This is not a treatise for the Democratic Party. Many Republicans and Libertarians believe in helping the poor through maximizing job opportunity, allowing for deregulated access to many services, school choice, etc. They would care just as much for the poor, just with different solutions. The point is, it will not be solely centered on Americans who already have the necessities of life. Instead of solely focusing on the middle class, we need to give more attention to the poor as well. This shift in American mentality will help across ideological lines.

What does NSG think?

*Made a quick edit due to a typo.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

At this point, genuine honest politicians will often face uphill battles because they'll be forced to focus more on campaign fundraising then actually doing government works. Meanwhile, bought politicians don't have to do Jack squat as long as the PAC dough keeps rolling in. They're only job is to do the will of their rich donors, and their ultimate reward, work for the lobbying firm or corporations they have been serving during their political career. It comes to a point that when we vote, at best we're only making a mere statement and stance. The national congress is practically ineffective. Of course I'm not condoning not to vote. If Americans want a working national congress, they'll have to remove influence of money from politics first. Otherwise, they'll be more or less stuck with pre-determined choice of candidates selected by the Establishment. It's a similar system to what the Chinese Communist party is also doing.

[Shilya]

That's a nice thought, but last time I checked, you don't get to vote on individual policy. You get to vote on a combined package in the form of one guys opinions.

Odds are, the guys opinion on how to help the poor are already in line with yours, and if they're not, they're hardly a dealbreaker against not only the treatment of your wealth, but also civil liberties, regulations (in various areas), his party leanings, etc...

Sure, it might be something for someone who's rather undecided, but I doubt it'll be common.

[Lalaki]

That's a nice thought, but last time I checked, you don't get to vote on individual policy. You get to vote on a combined package in the form of one guys opinions.

Odds are, the guys opinion on how to help the poor are already in line with yours, and if they're not, they're hardly a dealbreaker against not only the treatment of your wealth, but also civil liberties, regulations (in various areas), his party leanings, etc...

Sure, it might be something for someone who's rather undecided, but I doubt it'll be common.

I'm not quite sure what this means.

All I advocate is that American voters as a whole start putting the interests of those in need first, instead of their own group which already has a lot in life.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
-JFK

[Insaeldor]

I voted today and for the most part I voted democrat. Although I voted for our Independent candidate for senator and for the Libertarian candidate for our US house seat. I did for multiple reasons. I voted the way I did for the senate because our incumbent has been in Washington for 30+ years, he's more or less a lazy senator missing 60%-70% of his committee hearings, and the fact that the independent candidate has promised bi-partisanship and I think has been very proper with little to no attack ads where our republican has done nothing but thrown out attack ads.

I voted libertarian for the U.S. House because I didn't like ether the republican incumbent or the democratic Challanger and while he has no shot in hell of winning I atleast went out and voted for change in the Capitol.

If only we could have more than 3 parties on the ballot is be happy to vote otherwise but out of the three I prefer the Dems but I'm also intently unhappy about the Dems as well and would rather vote for the libertarian I don't wholly agree with rather than another party puppet.

[Shilya]

That's a nice thought, but last time I checked, you don't get to vote on individual policy. You get to vote on a combined package in the form of one guys opinions.

Odds are, the guys opinion on how to help the poor are already in line with yours, and if they're not, they're hardly a dealbreaker against not only the treatment of your wealth, but also civil liberties, regulations (in various areas), his party leanings, etc...

Sure, it might be something for someone who's rather undecided, but I doubt it'll be common.

I'm not quite sure what this means.

All I advocate is that American voters as a whole start putting the interests of those in need first, instead of their own group which already has a lot in life.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
-JFK

I'm saying that even your own interests aren't the only thing being considered right now. There's a whole country to consider, and things that will affect both you and the poor, and everyone else. For a fictional and rather extreme example, it's not very helpful when someone has great ideas how to help the poor, but also figures that abortions are sin, marriage should be forever and everyone starting at age 10 should have to carry at all times, also let's bomb Iran.

In other words, aside from the pure personal economic questions - "what benefits me, what benefits the poor" - there's also a lot of other questions, and they can completely overpower the personal benefits, as well as the question of the poor.

[Lalaki]

I'm not quite sure what this means.

All I advocate is that American voters as a whole start putting the interests of those in need first, instead of their own group which already has a lot in life.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
-JFK

I'm saying that even your own interests aren't the only thing being considered right now. There's a whole country to consider, and things that will affect both you and the poor, and everyone else. For a fictional and rather extreme example, it's not very helpful when someone has great ideas how to help the poor, but also figures that abortions are sin, marriage should be forever and everyone starting at age 10 should have to carry at all times, also let's bomb Iran.

In other words, aside from the pure personal economic questions - "what benefits me, what benefits the poor" - there's also a lot of other questions, and they can completely overpower the personal benefits, as well as the question of the poor.

I get what you are saying, and you are right. But that's not at all what I am saying. Obviously we need to take all beliefs into account, but what we find is that many people vote for the champion of the middle class, and focus on tax breaks and service projects for well-off Americans. This is something I advocate changing, as the mentality is prevalent across all party lines.

[Shilya]

I'm saying that even your own interests aren't the only thing being considered right now. There's a whole country to consider, and things that will affect both you and the poor, and everyone else. For a fictional and rather extreme example, it's not very helpful when someone has great ideas how to help the poor, but also figures that abortions are sin, marriage should be forever and everyone starting at age 10 should have to carry at all times, also let's bomb Iran.

In other words, aside from the pure personal economic questions - "what benefits me, what benefits the poor" - there's also a lot of other questions, and they can completely overpower the personal benefits, as well as the question of the poor.

I get what you are saying, and you are right. But that's not at all what I am saying. Obviously we need to take all beliefs into account, but what we find is that many people vote for the champion of the middle class, and focus on tax breaks and service projects for well-off Americans. This is something I advocate changing, as the mentality is prevalent across all party lines.

Well, you can say thank you to the cold war here. The notion "everyone thinks of themselves, then we've thought of all" was the counterpoint to communism, and it won't go away easily. Attacking individualism in the US won't go too well.

Especially in a time where I hear from all sides how much the middle class suffers already and is being squeezed out, and how the poor are so lazy and entitled. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying that's the thoughts you stand against. Good luck, you'll need it.

[The United Remnants of America]

I have a family friend running in my district. Of course I have to vote.

Even if he's a Republican.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

the U.S has such a dysfunctional government is because the system has become a Vetocracy, meaning no one can gain enough power to do anything.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

in my opinion it would be best if we had a centrist candidate run.

[Insaeldor]

the U.S has such a dysfunctional government is because the system has become a Vetocracy, meaning no one can gain enough power to do anything.

I'd argue America's more if a kakistocracy but whatever floats your boat.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

the U.S has such a dysfunctional government is because the system has become a Vetocracy, meaning no one can gain enough power to do anything.

I'd argue America's more if a kakistocracy but whatever floats your boat.

hey we aren't like Chile under Pinochet, atleast are policies aren't devised by a bunch of foreign exchange students.

[Central Slavia]

This is completely out.
US politicians might focus their campaign promises on the middle class but they act to favour the rich. And, well, another problem is that a fuckton of working poor think of themselves as middle class presently in a bit of financial tight spot.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

There cannot really be significant change to the income inequality issue because the way the system is set up allows for corruption and dysfunction. No country in the world has a government so much in bed with the corporations as the U.S.

[Conserative Morality]

There cannot really be significant change to the income inequality issue because the way the system is set up allows for corruption and dysfunction. No country in the world has a government so much in bed with the corporations as the U.S.

Er, I can think of a few who are worse. Quite a few, in fact.

[Freemopia]

If you don't agree with the two main candidates, vote third party/other.
people shouldn't vote for primary corrupt candidates.
voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil, and is wrong.
People shouldn't vote for people they dont like.

They should put in a "terminate this position" option on the ballot, then if the majority voted "terminate this position" or wrote no one in the write in section, no one would be elected to that position and the position would not exist anymore.

They should put in a "none of the above" option, then if the majority voted "none of the above" or wrote none of the above in the write in section, the above people on the ballot would never be allowed to be in that position, a new election would be held, and the position would remain vacant until someone was voted in.

They shouldn't be allowed to put people's names on the ballot, it should be write in only.

should switch to 75%+ super majority rule direct democracy

No law is passed or valid without 75%+ of the entire country’s approval by vote.
Government workers go door to door (for those who don’t opt out) to offer them air time to be on government channels daily, inhabitants can make arrangements with these government workers as to when to come over and how often.
There are government TV and radio channels 1 nation, 1 per 10,000 people, and 1 per 100 people.
There are town (1 per 10,000) and neighborhood (1 per 100) meetings that the government records and plays live in government channels every day.
The government website anyone can see all live and recorded footage that the government recorded.
Each inhabitant can submit a proposal 100charater limit that is aired on government channels and mailed to all inhabitants. Yearly the ballot is sent to all inhabitants that is a list of proposals they can check to pass ones, and list of laws they can check to remove ones. The results are publicized and sent to all inhabitants, and 2 paper copies and 2 outdoor signs of the laws are sent to all inhabitants.

the poor should be helped by maximizing job opportunity, allowing for deregulated access to many services, school choice, etc.

time/resources wasted over-punishing should be better spent correcting the root incentive of why most people commit crime(because corrupt gov members steal their better options to make wealth to purposely make them poor, forced dependent, or resort to crime), by spending it on giving the poor efficient welfare, job training, and defensive means to protect their right to freely use the land to be independent, and cut taxes and excessive regs on producers of survival products to create more good jobs, instead of taxing good jobs to fund excessive punishment.

The tax code should be simplified and include tax deductions for helping the poor

Only man made property value tax, maybe plus sales tax only on lavish items. Everyone allowed to keep at least 3mil started at age 0 minus $23,000 per year, plus deductions. Deductions roll over. Tax % not higher for poor than rich.
Lavish items are taxed higher than non lavish items. High-risk lavish items (ex. recreational drugs…) are taxed higher than low-risk lavish items.

Full tax deductions for:
-Health care/insurance costs, and health care savings account (for testing for and treating physical health problems and birth control.
-Education costs for learning how to make physical survival needs(renewable energy, water purifiers, heating and cooling, shelter, soap, medical supplies and services for testing for and treating physical health problems and birth control, ...)
-Charity for giving to the poor for their physical survival, $12/h+, +resources you spent and gave......$100/m deduction for being a registered organ donor.
-Business costs for making physical survival products.
-Individual gets $7/h to $12/h for making and teaching uncoerced willing people how to make physical survival products.

Welfare should be made more efficient and focus more on helping the poor become independent rather than trap them in dependency

Standard welfare package for poor people who can't afford it: (house(picture below), $1000 worth of supplies, cell phone with small solar panel charger, healthcare for testing for and treating physical health problems, birth control, security, and a government no interest, credit wont go down if not repaid, no collateral, confidential loans to those who can’t afford it, where they don’t have to pay it back until they have over $33,000 man made property value, to learn how to make survival products). People are given more based on their need.


Tax-funded health and safety information is aired in commercial time slots of non-government TV and radio channels, and mailed to all inhabitants (who don’t opt out) as manuals and pamphlets.

[Boomhaueristan]

At this point, genuine honest politicians will often face uphill battles because they'll be forced to focus more on campaign fundraising then actually doing government works. Meanwhile, bought politicians don't have to do Jack squat as long as the PAC dough keeps rolling in. They're only job is to do the will of their rich donors, and their ultimate reward, work for the lobbying firm or corporations they have been serving during their political career. It comes to a point that when we vote, at best we're only making a mere statement and stance. The national congress is practically ineffective. Of course I'm not condoning not to vote. If Americans want a working national congress, they'll have to remove influence of money from politics first. Otherwise, they'll be more or less stuck with pre-determined choice of candidates selected by the Establishment. It's a similar system to what the Chinese Communist party is also doing.

My thoughts exactly.