My Vote Doesn't Matter

[Major-Tom]

I think to an extent, it is subjective, sure.

I feel my vote "matters" because I live in a swing-state and have worked on enough campaigns to understand how close to the wire these elections can get. But if I lived in, say, Seattle, I wouldn't feel that my vote mattered much on a statewide or national level.

That said, local elections; whether for city council, county supervisor, etc etc, are still important races and have an impact on our day to day lives. My vote for who will represent and go to bat for my little neighborhood, to me, matters just as much (if not more) than my vote for a US Senator.

Whatever the case, I'm pretty disillusioned this cycle because I don't believe in the Democratic Party and think that it is a hollow, opportunistic institution as a whole. But the modern incarnation of the GOP scares me so much that I feel my vote matters insofar as to deny the GOP a chance to regain the Senate and House.

[Chan Island]

Not really. We don't have to go back to a previous system, we could always build a new one where workers control the means of production...

It gives the power to wealthy people with entirely different interests than those of the majority.

Only if you have enough slaves in your gulag to make up for the lack of specialization. The great thing about capitalism is you can empower the people with wealth, until you have something called the middle class where most of the wealth, population and voting power is. Imagine that, the majority is also wealthy and have the most say in politics. What a wonderful system.

Unfortunately, it's not really worked out that way has it? Inequality has skyrocketed about everywhere in the world, hollowing middle classes. Because in practice only a small minority get empowered by that wealth, and they use it to concentrate their power further. Capitalism is really not the positive force you are making it out to be.

[Betoni]

It’s all the same really. Presidential elections, state elections, neighborhood HOA elections, we’re all just mindless slaves with no break to the cycle. Live, work, die. There is no end and we must all suffer.

Well, if you want to let them think you are a mindless slave, you're welcome to prove them right.

Or you can step up.

The voting majority has really fucked up if they, and the organizations they vote for, think that people who don't participate by voting are mindless slaves. This whole shtick about voting, or other active political participation, being the only "right" way to make a difference is both tiresome and a serious misunderstanding of your own system.(Not saying that's your position, but seen it floated around in the general discourse) And no, if you decide not to participate you do not lose the right to complain or comment on the system. When the "sleeping voters" become large enough of a group then the parties will try to engage these people and mayhap some candidate will be more to their liking when they change their platform to engage these voters. And if the non voters as a group become large enough the whole system might need to be changed. Now, admittedly these are far from great strategies with controlled outcomes. Seeing as the non voters are not likely to have much common with one other, so the likelihood of you getting the outcome you desire is minimal. But if the current batch of parties, or candidates, are so far removed from what you want in the first place, not voting can be seen as a valid alternative and worth the gamble. I have not voted on more than couple of the elections I was eligible to vote on, mainly for not finding a good enough candidate and couple of times for feeling that I didn't have enough knowledge to give an informed vote. Though I'm not the one complaining about my vote or its importance so that's not really important. Just saying there can be well though out and sensible reasons why people choose not to vote.

[Chan Island]

Well, if you want to let them think you are a mindless slave, you're welcome to prove them right.

Or you can step up.

The voting majority has really fucked up if they, and the organizations they vote for, think that people who don't participate by voting are mindless slaves. This whole shtick about voting, or other active political participation, being the only "right" way to make a difference is both tiresome and a serious misunderstanding of your own system.(Not saying that's your position, but seen it floated around in the general discourse) And no, if you decide not to participate you do not lose the right to complain or comment on the system. When the "sleeping voters" become large enough of a group then the parties will try to engage these people and mayhap some candidate will be more to their liking when they change their platform to engage these voters. And if the non voters as a group become large enough the whole system might need to be changed. Now, admittedly these are far from great strategies with controlled outcomes. Seeing as the non voters are not likely to have much common with one other, so the likelihood of you getting the outcome you desire is minimal. But if the current batch of parties, or candidates, are so far removed from what you want in the first place, not voting can be seen as a valid alternative and worth the gamble. I have not voted on more than couple of the elections I was eligible to vote on, mainly for not finding a good enough candidate and couple of times for feeling that I didn't have enough knowledge to give an informed vote. Though I'm not the one complaining about my vote or its importance so that's not really important. Just saying there can be well though out and sensible reasons why people choose not to vote.

You misunderstand my argument; by 'them' I was referring to those in power, who are the ones who often think of everyone else as mindless slaves. Not voting would confirm those inclinations as you then do not take even the barest most basic step available to oppose them.

As for the rest of your argument, it's one that would be convincing if there wasn't a much more effective voting choice around, called spoiling your ballot. Politicians usually don't care at all about non-voters because, as you say, people not voting could mean a vast plethora of things. By definition there is no input, no data point in a place that matters for them to act upon.

By contrast, large numbers of people spoiling their ballots always sparks a frantic debate in the halls of power. This is because it can really only come down to a small handful of reasons: either the ballot was too complicated or screwed up (in which case politicians worry that maybe thousands of their own voters are unintentionally not voting for them, which is a direct, serious concern to their power). Or it could mean that vast numbers of people are willing to go the distance to the polling booth to specifically write down about how awful the choices are- a potential new power bloc, already semi-mobilised, just inviting new challengers to come and take a crack at their jobs.

So that argument still promotes voting- and while others may disagree, I see spoiling the ballot as an integral, valid choice in a democracy.

[Betoni]

The voting majority has really fucked up if they, and the organizations they vote for, think that people who don't participate by voting are mindless slaves. This whole shtick about voting, or other active political participation, being the only "right" way to make a difference is both tiresome and a serious misunderstanding of your own system.(Not saying that's your position, but seen it floated around in the general discourse) And no, if you decide not to participate you do not lose the right to complain or comment on the system. When the "sleeping voters" become large enough of a group then the parties will try to engage these people and mayhap some candidate will be more to their liking when they change their platform to engage these voters. And if the non voters as a group become large enough the whole system might need to be changed. Now, admittedly these are far from great strategies with controlled outcomes. Seeing as the non voters are not likely to have much common with one other, so the likelihood of you getting the outcome you desire is minimal. But if the current batch of parties, or candidates, are so far removed from what you want in the first place, not voting can be seen as a valid alternative and worth the gamble. I have not voted on more than couple of the elections I was eligible to vote on, mainly for not finding a good enough candidate and couple of times for feeling that I didn't have enough knowledge to give an informed vote. Though I'm not the one complaining about my vote or its importance so that's not really important. Just saying there can be well though out and sensible reasons why people choose not to vote.

You misunderstand my argument; by 'them' I was referring to those in power, who are the ones who often think of everyone else as mindless slaves. Not voting would confirm those inclinations as you then do not take even the barest most basic step available to oppose them.

As for the rest of your argument, it's one that would be convincing if there wasn't a much more effective voting choice around, called spoiling your ballot. Politicians usually don't care at all about non-voters because, as you say, people not voting could mean a vast plethora of things. By definition there is no input, no data point in a place that matters for them to act upon.

By contrast, large numbers of people spoiling their ballots always sparks a frantic debate in the halls of power. This is because it can really only come down to a small handful of reasons: either the ballot was too complicated or screwed up (in which case politicians worry that maybe thousands of their own voters are unintentionally not voting for them, which is a direct, serious concern to their power). Or it could mean that vast numbers of people are willing to go the distance to the polling booth to specifically write down about how awful the choices are- a potential new power bloc, already semi-mobilised, just inviting new challengers to come and take a crack at their jobs.

So that argument still promotes voting- and while others may disagree, I see spoiling the ballot as an integral, valid choice in a democracy.

Oh, so the mysterious them, who think everyone else is a mindless slave put in power by voters who supposedly prove that assertion wrong by putting these horrible people in power, and you think this is a good argument to get other people involved in this strange ritual?

I don't really see much difference between voting for donald duck and not voting. All it really tells the would be politicians fishing for votes is that you don't have to work that hard to get these people to vote for you as opposed to those ones that didn't even bother to go voting. I don't know if that is a good thing or not. I would question if spoiling a ballot is anymore effective than not voting. Politicians don't care about non voters until some other politician manages to get them voting. Or until large enough percentage of eligible voters decide not to vote making the mandate questionable and thus shaking the whole system. That being the point of not voting. Though, mostly I suspect the most likely reason not to vote is apathy and just not being bothered enough.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Even if power just bounces back and forth between two large parties, you are still voting on their policy platforms, which in turn shapes their future policy positions.

[Chan Island]

You misunderstand my argument; by 'them' I was referring to those in power, who are the ones who often think of everyone else as mindless slaves. Not voting would confirm those inclinations as you then do not take even the barest most basic step available to oppose them.

As for the rest of your argument, it's one that would be convincing if there wasn't a much more effective voting choice around, called spoiling your ballot. Politicians usually don't care at all about non-voters because, as you say, people not voting could mean a vast plethora of things. By definition there is no input, no data point in a place that matters for them to act upon.

By contrast, large numbers of people spoiling their ballots always sparks a frantic debate in the halls of power. This is because it can really only come down to a small handful of reasons: either the ballot was too complicated or screwed up (in which case politicians worry that maybe thousands of their own voters are unintentionally not voting for them, which is a direct, serious concern to their power). Or it could mean that vast numbers of people are willing to go the distance to the polling booth to specifically write down about how awful the choices are- a potential new power bloc, already semi-mobilised, just inviting new challengers to come and take a crack at their jobs.

So that argument still promotes voting- and while others may disagree, I see spoiling the ballot as an integral, valid choice in a democracy.

Oh, so the mysterious them, who think everyone else is a mindless slave put in power by voters who supposedly prove that assertion wrong by putting these horrible people in power, and you think this is a good argument to get other people involved in this strange ritual?

I don't really see much difference between voting for donald duck and not voting. All it really tells the would be politicians fishing for votes is that you don't have to work that hard to get these people to vote for you as opposed to those ones that didn't even bother to go voting. I don't know if that is a good thing or not. I would question if spoiling a ballot is anymore effective than not voting. Politicians don't care about non voters until some other politician manages to get them voting. Or until large enough percentage of eligible voters decide not to vote making the mandate questionable and thus shaking the whole system. That being the point of not voting. Though, mostly I suspect the most likely reason not to vote is apathy and just not being bothered enough.

The mysterious 'them' are politicians, who are fundamentally human beings like you and I. Just operating on a set of circumstances that promote certain behaviours- like egotistical ones. Some of them absolutely adopt views or act in ways that suggest it once they have attained office. Power corrupts, and all that jazz. More than one starry-eyed idealist has been elected only to become jaded sleaze-bags after a few years in the office. Voting out such individuals proves that path a foolish one, and provides a cautionary tale for the next candidate.
But of course, there's always the choice to help promoting that behaviour by not punishing them at the ballot box. Not showing up a great way to do that.

The difference between the vote for donald duck and not showing up is that donald duck is now a data point relevant to the political parties. People who watch the vote counts will see it (and they talk), the number of spoilt ballots is recorded (and it is watched closely), choice selections end up in the press for all to see. You're then going on to reinforce my argument for me- yes, people could be not voting due to apathy. We can't know 100%, there are too many possibilities with that. But spoilt ballots? There are just a small handful of stories with those, and all of them are direct reasons for politicians to care.

And a large enough percentage of spoiled ballots is absolutely a wake-up call; like for example in 2012 the British Police and Crime Commissioner election saw a record percentage of spoiled ballots, which was interpreted as a part of public rejection of the concept. It prompted article after article, debates in parliament, and a reform of the concept right out the gate. The catch? Less than 5% of ballots cast had been spoiled. A 5% of the votes had been the centre of attention in British politics for weeks- meanwhile low turnouts never generate as much interest.

[Ethikia]

Even if power just bounces back and forth between two large parties, you are still voting on their policy platforms, which in turn shapes their future policy positions.

If there's only two polarized parties you don't have a say in their policies because you don't have alternative, the only thing that matters are the primaries and still the range of options in a primary are limited. Some parts of the country would be de facto one party systems because it would be unthinkable to see the other party elected

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Even if power just bounces back and forth between two large parties, you are still voting on their policy platforms, which in turn shapes their future policy positions.

If there's only two polarized parties you don't have a say in their policies because you don't have alternative, the only thing that matters are the primaries and still the range of options in a primary are limited. Some parts of the country would be de facto one party systems because it would be unthinkable to see the other party elected

Yes you do have an influence. Their policy platforms change, and they move in the direction they think will get them most votes.

[Ethikia]

If there's only two polarized parties you don't have a say in their policies because you don't have alternative, the only thing that matters are the primaries and still the range of options in a primary are limited. Some parts of the country would be de facto one party systems because it would be unthinkable to see the other party elected

Yes you do have an influence. Their policy platforms change, and they move in the direction they think will get them most votes.

Only if the competition is close, that's why I said some parts of a country (like deep blue or deep red). I grew up in a part of my country where it was unthinkable to elect a different party for basically 70 years. At the end the "policy platform" basically did not existed and still they got voted out because of a national-level cultural shift.
Some parts of US will slowly become one-party systems if something does not change. Some States already have the entirety of their democratic competition in primaries, I hope there's a legal obligation to have them or they will basically have local democracy only because of the goodwill of Republican and Democrat party.

[San Lumen]

Yes you do have an influence. Their policy platforms change, and they move in the direction they think will get them most votes.

Only if the competition is close, that's why I said some parts of a country (like deep blue or deep red). I grew up in a part of my country where it was unthinkable to elect a different party for basically 70 years. At the end the "policy platform" basically did not existed and still they got voted out because of a national-level cultural shift.
Some parts of US will slowly become one-party systems if something does not change. Some States already have the entirety of their democratic competition in primaries, I hope there's a legal obligation to have them or they will basically have local democracy only because of the goodwill of Republican and Democrat party.

Legal obligation to have what? a primary?

There is jungle primaries in Louisiana and top two in Washington and California. Alaska has top four.

[Haganham]

I'm pretty disillusioned this cycle because I don't believe in the Democratic Party and think that it is a hollow, opportunistic institution as a whole. But the modern incarnation of the GOP scares me so much that I feel my vote matters insofar as to deny the GOP a chance to regain the Senate and House.

This is the root of the problem. People prop up the DNC that they have been locked out of, because they are scared of a GOP that is there for the taking.

[Forever Indomitable]

Nobody marches with me; everyone marches against me.

That makes you sound like such a fucking drama queen.

Is it dramatic to state that the sky is blue? I don't share a similar platform with anyone, so that means everyone is factually opposed to me.

You are completely ignorant of history and you peddling pseudoscience too.

Because making assertions that are backed up by well established scientific evidence is "pseudoscience" .

If you don't receive anything in return for participating in society, why don't you just go to a deserted island or an uninhabited wilderness?

Oh, right, those places don't have running water, convenient road access, electricity, internet, grocery stores, or any of the other hundreds of things you use that come from other people's work.

So don't sit there and tell us you aren't getting anything out of it when you participate in society.

You don't get to decide what everyone else does, but you have tons of choices about how you want to live your own life. Maybe spend less time ranting about "society" and more time working on your own life.

I mean that I don't receive anything as a result of political influence. The people that vote for popular, viable parties actually receive things they vote for. What I get is a result of what's slopped on the plate in front of me & you & everyone else just tell me to shut the fuck up & eat it. I don't have a choice. Yeah, technology & utilities are a luxury and I wouldn't want to do without it and I appreciate peoples' work. But the thing is, that's where it all stops. As far as actual freedom or proliferating what I value in this life at a social level, it doesn't happen. If materialism was such a boon to the soul, people from developed nations wouldn't kill themselves, but life isn't just about the material things at your fingertips.

Oh, right, those places don't have running water, convenient road access, electricity, internet, grocery stores, or any of the other hundreds of things you use that come from other people's work.

A prison also has shelter, food, electricity and structure, but it's still a prison and I'm in an open air prison with no gang to belong to and I live at the mercy of the world. I have to watch what I say; I have to deal with having barely anything in common with anyone, and I get to be alone and lonely.

You don't get to decide what everyone else does, but you have tons of choices about how you want to live your own life. Maybe spend less time ranting about "society" and more time working on your own life.

And when did I ever say or imply about wanting to decide about what everyone else does? I haven't and I don't want to, but society does not grant me the same courtesy. Your solution is literally "deal with it or fuck off to the woods" and yet you have the audacity to call me selfish. Amazing.

And I dare to speak about my experience and you tell me to shut up and mind my business, while simultaneously telling me I have a "voice" in this society of yours. So, I do "work on my life" because it's the only thing I have. You have no idea the amount of work I do, so get off your high horse.

[San Lumen]

That makes you sound like such a fucking drama queen.

Is it dramatic to state that the sky is blue? I don't share a similar platform with anyone, so that means everyone is factually opposed to me.

You are completely ignorant of history and you peddling pseudoscience too.

Because making assertions that are backed up by well established scientific evidence is "pseudoscience" .

If you don't receive anything in return for participating in society, why don't you just go to a deserted island or an uninhabited wilderness?

Oh, right, those places don't have running water, convenient road access, electricity, internet, grocery stores, or any of the other hundreds of things you use that come from other people's work.

So don't sit there and tell us you aren't getting anything out of it when you participate in society.

You don't get to decide what everyone else does, but you have tons of choices about how you want to live your own life. Maybe spend less time ranting about "society" and more time working on your own life.

I mean that I don't receive anything as a result of political influence. The people that vote for popular, viable parties actually receive things they vote for. What I get is a result of what's slopped on the plate in front of me & you & everyone else just tell me to shut the fuck up & eat it. I don't have a choice. Yeah, technology & utilities are a luxury and I wouldn't want to do without it and I appreciate peoples' work. But the thing is, that's where it all stops. As far as actual freedom or proliferating what I value in this life at a social level, it doesn't happen. If materialism was such a boon to the soul, people from developed nations wouldn't kill themselves, but life isn't just about the material things at your fingertips.

Oh, right, those places don't have running water, convenient road access, electricity, internet, grocery stores, or any of the other hundreds of things you use that come from other people's work.

A prison also has shelter, food, electricity and structure, but it's still a prison and I'm in an open air prison with no gang to belong to and I live at the mercy of the world. I have to watch what I say; I have to deal with having barely anything in common with anyone, and I get to be alone and lonely.

You don't get to decide what everyone else does, but you have tons of choices about how you want to live your own life. Maybe spend less time ranting about "society" and more time working on your own life.

And when did I ever say or imply about wanting to decide about what everyone else does? I haven't and I don't want to, but society does not grant me the same courtesy. Your solution is literally "deal with it or fuck off to the woods" and yet you have the audacity to call me selfish. Amazing.

And I dare to speak about my experience and you tell me to shut up and mind my business, while simultaneously telling me I have a "voice" in this society of yours. So, I do "work on my life" because it's the only thing I have. You have no idea the amount of work I do, so get off your high horse.

None of your claims are backing up scientific evidence. Politics is not genetic. If it was how do areas change voting patterns?

You have an incredibly entitled and selfish attitude. Just because someone in office doesn't personally benefit you doesn't mean they aren't benefitting society as whole.

The world doesn't revolve around you and your needs.

[Forever Indomitable]

None of your claims are backing up scientific evidence. Politics is not genetic. If it was how do areas change voting patterns?

You have an incredibly entitled and selfish attitude. Just because someone in office doesn't personally benefit you doesn't mean they aren't benefitting society as whole.

The world doesn't revolve around you and your needs.

I literally posted the evidence in the post you originally replied to:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29152902/
"Twin and family studies have showed that personality traits are moderately heritable, and can predict various lifetime outcomes, including psychopathology."

"Despite considerable efforts over the past several decades, the genetic variants that influence personality are only beginning to be identified."

https://bookofodds.com/relationships-so ... physiology
"And since people aren’t often inclined to pair off with those who don’t share their political views (the odds a woman reports having similar views to her partner is 1 in 1.18, or about 85%), if politics are genetic, we’re likely to get them from both sides of the family tree."

Areas can change voting patterns through various ways like immigration, emigration, migration, redrawing districts and so on. All of these things always start at a biological basis.

You have an incredibly entitled and selfish attitude.

Right, because wanting something when you have next to nothing is "incredibly selfish and entitled"....holy shit, just SMDH.

Just because someone in office doesn't personally benefit you doesn't mean they aren't benefitting society as whole.

Ah, so you concede my life or anyone's life outside the majority doesn't matter. Thank you for the honesty. "Benefit" is subjective, btw, and we will never stop having conflicts about it because everyone's idea of it is different.

The world doesn't revolve around you and your needs.

That's right; it revolves around yours.

[Michel Meilleur]

Yeah, your vote as an individual doesn't matter, much like your life as an individual doesn't matter. It doesn't mean that it's worth nothing, tho. The point of voting is recognizing that worth even if it doesn't translate into "meaning".

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

A prison also has shelter, food, electricity and structure, but it's still a prison and I'm in an open air prison with no gang to belong to and I live at the mercy of the world. I have to watch what I say; I have to deal with having barely anything in common with anyone, and I get to be alone and lonely.

and ending pluralitarian democracy solves this... how?

I mostly understand what you're saying, but you have yet to posit any solutions to the problem. do you want to use IRV or something?

[San Lumen]

None of your claims are backing up scientific evidence. Politics is not genetic. If it was how do areas change voting patterns?

You have an incredibly entitled and selfish attitude. Just because someone in office doesn't personally benefit you doesn't mean they aren't benefitting society as whole.

The world doesn't revolve around you and your needs.

I literally posted the evidence in the post you originally replied to:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29152902/
"Twin and family studies have showed that personality traits are moderately heritable, and can predict various lifetime outcomes, including psychopathology."

"Despite considerable efforts over the past several decades, the genetic variants that influence personality are only beginning to be identified."

https://bookofodds.com/relationships-so ... physiology
"And since people aren’t often inclined to pair off with those who don’t share their political views (the odds a woman reports having similar views to her partner is 1 in 1.18, or about 85%), if politics are genetic, we’re likely to get them from both sides of the family tree."

Areas can change voting patterns through various ways like immigration, emigration, migration, redrawing districts and so on. All of these things always start at a biological basis.

You have an incredibly entitled and selfish attitude.

Right, because wanting something when you have next to nothing is "incredibly selfish and entitled"....holy shit, just SMDH.

Just because someone in office doesn't personally benefit you doesn't mean they aren't benefitting society as whole.

Ah, so you concede my life or anyone's life outside the majority doesn't matter. Thank you for the honesty. "Benefit" is subjective, btw, and we will never stop having conflicts about it because everyone's idea of it is different.

The world doesn't revolve around you and your needs.

That's right; it revolves around yours.

You have not shown politics is genetic. If this is true how does an areas voting pattern change?

I did not say your life didn’t matter or that the world revolved around me.

What would you like to have that you don’t and what do you expect your elected officials to do about it?

[Forever Indomitable]

I literally posted the evidence in the post you originally replied to:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29152902/
"Twin and family studies have showed that personality traits are moderately heritable, and can predict various lifetime outcomes, including psychopathology."

"Despite considerable efforts over the past several decades, the genetic variants that influence personality are only beginning to be identified."

https://bookofodds.com/relationships-so ... physiology
"And since people aren’t often inclined to pair off with those who don’t share their political views (the odds a woman reports having similar views to her partner is 1 in 1.18, or about 85%), if politics are genetic, we’re likely to get them from both sides of the family tree."

Areas can change voting patterns through various ways like immigration, emigration, migration, redrawing districts and so on. All of these things always start at a biological basis.


Right, because wanting something when you have next to nothing is "incredibly selfish and entitled"....holy shit, just SMDH.


Ah, so you concede my life or anyone's life outside the majority doesn't matter. Thank you for the honesty. "Benefit" is subjective, btw, and we will never stop having conflicts about it because everyone's idea of it is different.


That's right; it revolves around yours.

You have not shown politics is genetic. If this is true how does an areas voting pattern change?

I did not say your life didn’t matter or that the world revolved around me.

What would you like to have that you don’t and what do you expect your elected officials to do about it?

I did show politics are genetic. Reread the original links I gave you because I'm on phone and can't repost them (easily) right now.

I would like to live in a world that's more interesting and with a wider variety of people, creativity, challenge and stimuli. I expect my elected officials to do nothing about it because it runs counter to their interest, as it does to the vast majorities that elect them, and people don't want to compromise on anything, regardless of what team they're on.

For example, something I would like to see is drastic prison/"justice" reform. While I'd prefer the complete abolishment of the government, police, and the prison system, I'd be happy to see a program where convicted felons just complete a bachelor's degree and are released, regardless of the offense. Education is proven to radically decrease recidivism and educating prisoners would help with creating upward mobility in the poorest demographics and help the economy. Most importantly, it helps my race and humanity because it facilitates more cognitive diversity and slightly reduces genetic domestication. More interesting and multifaceted people would be given a chance to be created through reproduction, instead of all the generic, single dimensional people we're currently stuck with. I doubt that will happen, though, because democracy, like all authorian systems, wants to domesticate and subjugate it's population for the sake of control. The developed world is still waging a Malthusian eugenic war against its populations. That's probably a big reason why conjugal visits have been virtually abolished in the US. Our rulers want sheep.

[Major-Tom]

I'm pretty disillusioned this cycle because I don't believe in the Democratic Party and think that it is a hollow, opportunistic institution as a whole. But the modern incarnation of the GOP scares me so much that I feel my vote matters insofar as to deny the GOP a chance to regain the Senate and House.

This is the root of the problem. People prop up the DNC that they have been locked out of, because they are scared of a GOP that is there for the taking.

100%, but until we see some alternatives or change within the DNC and broader party, I'll stick to the devil I know for now.

[San Lumen]

You have not shown politics is genetic. If this is true how does an areas voting pattern change?

I did not say your life didn’t matter or that the world revolved around me.

What would you like to have that you don’t and what do you expect your elected officials to do about it?

I did show politics are genetic. Reread the original links I gave you because I'm on phone and can't repost them (easily) right now.

I would like to live in a world that's more interesting and with a wider variety of people, creativity, challenge and stimuli. I expect my elected officials to do nothing about it because it runs counter to their interest, as it does to the vast majorities that elect them, and people don't want to compromise on anything, regardless of what team they're on.

For example, something I would like to see is drastic prison/"justice" reform. While I'd prefer the complete abolishment of the government, police, and the prison system, I'd be happy to see a program where convicted felons just complete a bachelor's degree and are released, regardless of the offense. Education is proven to radically decrease recidivism and educating prisoners would help with creating upward mobility in the poorest demographics and help the economy. Most importantly, it helps my race and humanity because it facilitates more cognitive diversity and slightly reduces genetic domestication. More interesting and multifaceted people would be given a chance to be created through reproduction, instead of all the generic, single dimensional people we're currently stuck with. I doubt that will happen, though, because democracy, like all authorian systems, wants to domesticate and subjugate it's population for the sake of control. The developed world is still waging a Malthusian eugenic war against its populations. That's probably a big reason why conjugal visits have been virtually abolished in the US. Our rulers want sheep.

There is absolutely zero evidence its genetic. If it was explain to me how West Virginia went from a solid blue state to a ruby red one? If it was true voting patterns would never change.

You want anarchy and no law and order. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously went you write insanity like this?

Why don't you get off you butt and run for office if you think you have all the solutions?

[Necroghastia]

"politics are genetic" is one hell of a leap from "personality traits are moderately heritable" lmao

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

You have not shown politics is genetic. If this is true how does an areas voting pattern change?

I did not say your life didn’t matter or that the world revolved around me.

What would you like to have that you don’t and what do you expect your elected officials to do about it?

I did show politics are genetic. Reread the original links I gave you because I'm on phone and can't repost them (easily) right now.

I would like to live in a world that's more interesting and with a wider variety of people, creativity, challenge and stimuli. I expect my elected officials to do nothing about it because it runs counter to their interest, as it does to the vast majorities that elect them, and people don't want to compromise on anything, regardless of what team they're on.

For example, something I would like to see is drastic prison/"justice" reform. While I'd prefer the complete abolishment of the government, police, and the prison system, I'd be happy to see a program where convicted felons just complete a bachelor's degree and are released, regardless of the offense. Education is proven to radically decrease recidivism and educating prisoners would help with creating upward mobility in the poorest demographics and help the economy. Most importantly, it helps my race and humanity because it facilitates more cognitive diversity and slightly reduces genetic domestication. More interesting and multifaceted people would be given a chance to be created through reproduction, instead of all the generic, single dimensional people we're currently stuck with. I doubt that will happen, though, because democracy, like all authorian systems, wants to domesticate and subjugate it's population for the sake of control. The developed world is still waging a Malthusian eugenic war against its populations. That's probably a big reason why conjugal visits have been virtually abolished in the US. Our rulers want sheep.

Alright, I'll bite.

You have absolutely not proven that politics is genetic, and this insistence that your sources say it does even though they really don't is unbecoming.

Your first source demonstrates that children often end up voting in the same way as their parents. An important plank in your argument, no doubt, but to just declare that that means job done is a disservice. Off the top of my head, I can think of many other reasons why this would be the case; upbringing, the values the parents teach their kids, geography, membership of the same social class or ethnicity, the similarity of experiences they are likely to face, just to name a few. To prove that politics was genetic, you have to demonstrate that all of these other factors are not having a significant influence.

And then furthermore explain some vast, high profile discrepancies with the assertion such as the Brexit referendum, which saw age being the strongest predictor of how someone would vote. Demonstrably in this case, millions of britons decided to vote the opposite direction as their own children or parents- presenting a serious challenge to the notion that politics is genetic.

This notion is made further weakened then by your other source, arguing that people often prefer spouses that hold similar political opinions. OK, I agree. But that argument also doesn't prove it's genetic. Once again, I can think of many reasons off the top of my head that could also explain it, like exposure, culture, agreeability, shared experiences and political environment. And once again, I think everyone here knows someone who's married and had kids with someone of a completely different political worldview. It's a bit of a leap of logic to therefore argue that that's a reason in favour of politics being genetic.

Completely agree with you on the criminal justice reform part. Well, except with all of that mumbo-jumbo about single-dimensional people. But if you like, there is a lot of ways in which you could get involved with changing criminal justice. In fact, in the US you have a fairly unique level of influence on that realm; you get to vote on judges, sheriffs and direct ballot initiatives that all can reflect whatever view you like on criminal justice. And even huge states like Florida have voted to give felons the right to vote, so this assumption that you can't mobilise vast numbers of people to vote the right way on these issues is baloney. Put up the pressure, fight where it hurts, and it's remarkable how much you can achieve in a democracy.

[Torisakia]

It’s all the same really. Presidential elections, state elections, neighborhood HOA elections, we’re all just mindless slaves with no break to the cycle. Live, work, die. There is no end and we must all suffer.

Well, if you want to let them think you are a mindless slave, you're welcome to prove them right.

Or you can step up.

I don't think, I know. Try and step up, and they drag you under the water. Sometimes a shark takes the bait, and sinks the whole ship. There is no freedom of voice, only repression. There is no hope for humanity. We're all doomed until the end of time. Believing otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand.

[San Lumen]

Well, if you want to let them think you are a mindless slave, you're welcome to prove them right.

Or you can step up.

I don't think, I know. Try and step up, and they drag you under the water. Sometimes a shark takes the bait, and sinks the whole ship. There is no freedom of voice, only repression. There is no hope for humanity. We're all doomed until the end of time. Believing otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand.

Complete and utter rubbish.