16
Do people vote just by name recognition on the ballot or do they vote for the issues? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

They mostly vote by party affiliation. If we could get that R and D off the ballot suddenly, we'd get some really interesting results

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

    Our judges are elected in a "non-partisan" section of the ballot, but when you go to their web pages the party affiliation is prominent. You can take the D or R off the ballot, but not from the politics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I mean if people are going to a candidates web page I'd call that an improvement. Forcing a voter to learn something about a candidate is better than just checking the box.

    There are states that have "straight-ticket voting" where you just select your party and then all your votes go to the candidate aligned with that party. You don't even have to know the name of who you're voting for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    Sure, but honestly how many people actually research their choices? We're dying because of low information voters turning democracy into a team sport

    I'd be happy if you simply had to correctly spell the name of the candidate under the position they're running for. It's a really low bar as far as poll tests go, and at least everyone would have to do a minimal amount of research on the election to have their vote count

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    I think removing the party affiliation is the easier first step. Then you just have to recognize the name of someone you want to vote for.

    I will say though, the last time I floated the idea of just removing down ballot voting by party, someone told me that it actually disenfranchises a huge number of voters. Why? In places where there is no law about "at least a X polling places for Y citizens" it increases throughput and lets more people cast ballots.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I agree, it's much lower hanging fruit, and I think it would have a positive affect on the team-sports attitude most voters have

    Why? In places where there is no law about "at least a X polling places for Y citizens" it increases throughput and lets more people cast ballots.

    This makes no sense to me though... It's like "if times are tough, we should just prescribe people medicine for every other day"

    Like, sure, I'm sure it increases throughput, but at the cost of effectively disenfranchising high information voters.

    Our models for democracy are not working. We're one of the furthest along, but the same corruptive forces are happening in every democracy. I think it's fundamental that everyone has the right to vote, and that access needs to be universal. But I'm no longer convinced everyone's vote should count equally - we need to create a better form of democracy

    It's just too easy to manipulate low information voters, and liberal democracy seems to produce a whole lot of bad outcomes - even in countries with less susceptible systems than ours, low information voters are killing us

    I think this idea is worth trying, and if we need to widely use mail in voting or open more polling stations, that seems like a really cheap price to pay. It's not like we're well enfranchised now... The fact that we don't have enough polling to serve the voters is a problem in itself

    This election aside (which will hopefully be very historical), modern US elections are decided by a shockingly small percentage of the population living in the right place

    Much of it is manipulation through crazy districts and voter suppression, but the biggest factor is the fact the majority of active voters are blindly loyal down ballot voters. That predictably is why gerrymandering works - along with the insanely granular data collection and control of information, elections are more like a game of strategy than the will of the people

    I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I want you to understand that your desire for improvement is good and correct, and there will always be a million excuses to keep things the same

    We need to try things and adapt as we go... There will be problems, but if we keep pressing forward we can find solutions. And it's much better than guaranteed suffering forever

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Our models for democracy are not working. We're one of the furthest along, but the same corruptive forces are happening in every democracy. I think it's fundamental that everyone has the right to vote, and that access needs to be universal. But I'm no longer convinced everyone's vote should count equally - we need to create a better form of democracy

    This is exactly it. The system we have worked when all voters were basically on equal footing in terms of ability to find and consume information. This is obviously no longer the case. The problem is, most changes you can make are easy to weaponize. Also, to make any type of change you have to vote for it in the current system where low info voters can be convinced to vote against their own interests anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    The problem is, most changes you can make are easy to weaponize.

    Yep. That's why I'm not proposing something like a civics test, any idea has to be simple and straightforward enough that there's no room to twist it into targeted voter suppression

    Also, to make any type of change you have to vote for it in the current system where low info voters can be convinced to vote against their own interests anyway

    That's true, but politics is an ebb and a flow. We've passed basically no laws for years now, and (hopefully as we'll see today) there's building pressure for change

    If we get enough progressives in office, and they answer the call of the people to do something, we're going to end up with a short period where change is possible.

    Hopefully in two years, when Trump is in still in office and progressives have spent the last two years establishing themselves and gaining the trust of the people, we could have a full progressive sweep of Congress and at least a somewhat progressive or sympathetic president

    That would open a window, and that will be the chance to make sweeping charges. Probably the only chance in our lifetimes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent