www.ditl.org

Bryan Moore wrote:

McAvoy wrote:

Mikey wrote:In general I'd say yes, but I think the die-hard left suffers from greater voter apathy than the die-hard right. Not the extreme fringes, of course - as you say, those are the ones one both sides who vote early and often. I do believe, however, that there is some basis in reality for the greater voter apathy in the mid-left population centers (read: inner cities.)

I do see that. It could be a combination of not wanting to do anything with the government even voting, to the difficulty some may have getting to those centers, to fear of showing up and getting rejected etc.

I do see more conversations voting to make sure those dirty godless socialist democrats don't get voted in too.

I'd say that's a pretty valid point. I do not vote in a national election, save for a single Republican primary, admittedly... largely because I have never once found a candidate I truly believe in. In the future, I probably will vote, just to, as McAvoy said, keep the socialist democrats out. It's inevitable, but not once have I found a shred of evidence that a socialized economy would work in a socio-economically and culturally diverse society such as the US without considerable upheaval and an utter collapse of the US economy in the long term. But hey, that's just me.

Well... The roads you drive on is a socialist system. The whole highway and road system is anti-Republican in nature. It's Big Government.

And it has been perhaps the biggest success story in US history.

A distinction should be made between regulated capitalism and true socialism. The latter has serious problems when put in practice, and it's patently not what most on the economic left desire. Unrestrained capitalism has major flaws too, however. What I haven't seen yet is a good proposal to balance the needs of workers with those of capitalists to come from the right. Lacking that, laissez-faire policy creates an inexorable flow of money from the ordinary citizens to the very rich. Eventually someone on the right has to realize this isn't sustainable.

Bueller? ... Bueller?

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:I read a while back that the focus US politicians have on "winning over the moderates" is misplaced; there really are no moderates, or at least so few that chasing their votes is a waste of time. Rather, elections hinge on motivating your own voters to actually turn up and vote. Which is why the extremism republicans have pursued for the last decade or so has worked so well; their message and policies are crafted entirely to appeal to their own base, and if they seem stupid or outright evil to everyone else, so what? Republicans don't care one bit about that because those aren't votes they want or need.

It's as much about limiting turnout for the other base as it is inspiring your own, which is partly why US turnout is low. Negative campaigning isn't great for political civility. It's true that there are relatively few true "swing" voters.

Yes, good point. Apparently the Russians did a LOT of this in the last Presidential campaign, advertising to left wing voters who didn't like Hillary to try and depress the turnout for her. And it worked, too.

Bryan Moore wrote:

Vic wrote:I hear alot about these "voter suppression laws". but have never seen them spelled out, what exactly are they?

Basically various laws that make it more difficult for people in certain areas to vote... Whether it is by limiting times to vote, times to register, or clearing names from registries after periods of voter activity. Varies from era to era.

Don't things like this effect all voters, not just certain segments of the population?

Vic wrote:

Bryan Moore wrote:

Vic wrote:I hear alot about these "voter suppression laws". but have never seen them spelled out, what exactly are they?

Basically various laws that make it more difficult for people in certain areas to vote... Whether it is by limiting times to vote, times to register, or clearing names from registries after periods of voter activity. Varies from era to era.

Don't things like this effect all voters, not just certain segments of the population?

No, because it's often done in a way to target certain demographics or areas. For instance poor people tend to not have driving licenses. And republicans have taken to shutting down DMVs in poor areas so they can't easily get them.

Graham Kennedy wrote:

Vic wrote:

Bryan Moore wrote:Basically various laws that make it more difficult for people in certain areas to vote... Whether it is by limiting times to vote, times to register, or clearing names from registries after periods of voter activity. Varies from era to era.

Don't things like this effect all voters, not just certain segments of the population?

No, because it's often done in a way to target certain demographics or areas. For instance poor people tend to not have driving licenses. And republicans have taken to shutting down DMVs in poor areas so they can't easily get them.

An additional element to the above is related to geographical polarization (the tendency of US cities to vote democratic and rural areas to vote republican). People of color and the working poor in large cities are the most dependent on public transit, further adding to the chances they won't have a driver license. Then, purging of voter rolls (requiring affected people to re-register) and limiting times affects those with the least time and most stress the most, who are largely the same population as before.

Clearly republicans aren't going to out and out say they're targeting the opposing base, so it's going to be done under cloak and dagger. In this case the cover is a fight against supposed rampant voter fraud (as stated earlier, a non-existent problem).

There's also a tendency for republican candidates to outperform the popular vote on multiple levels of government, assured by gerrymanders. Also, in a couple of states (Michigan, Wisconsin) where democratic governors have been elected to replace republican incumbents, the lame-duck sessions in republican-held state legislatures have voted in measures to restrict the power of the incoming democratic governors.