https://nitter.1d4.us/9mmballpoint/status/1677408475553443842

https://twitter.com/9mmballpoint/status/1677408475553443842

  • DoubleShot [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is something I have suspected of being true but haven’t yet seen the hard data. Nearly every American (even those who don’t vote) see election results as broadly indicative of the populace’s preferences. That whether 20% of the people vote or 70%, that’s seen as a representative sample so we just assume that non-voters would break along similar lines. But I really don’t think that’s true, I don’t know. But this doesn’t even account for the millions of people who live and work here but aren’t allowed to vote (undocumented workers).

    • axont [she/her, comrade/them]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if the America electoral system somehow produced the results it claims to, I still don't think it would represent people's broad interests. Americans think deeply about their ideology about 5 minutes per year. People vote completely on vibes and at no risk to themselves.

      Places that have more participation based democracy, like Cuba, have citizens actually attend meetings and work out policy together. There are multiple rounds of referendums and the policies impact more than just which person goes in what chair.

      In America you're clicking a name and a party after standing in line once every two years. There's a correlation with winning and being named at the top of the ballot form too. I have to believe at least 5% of people are voting completely at random too.