Voting

[Thoughtful Monk]

I've been a little surprised that with all the discussion about voting rights, voting suppression, the Georgia lawsuit, etc. there hasn't been a Tweb thread on voting.

Well, this isn't the thread for that discussion. To me, these issues are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while ignoring the bigger issue that is destroying the USA democracy. Let me explain.

I'm registered with no party affiliation - independent. I live in a deep blue (Democratic) city, in a pretty blue county, and a deep blue state (NY). It is pretty much a given where the NY Presidential electoral votes be cast in 2024 - whoever the Democratic nominee is.

We just had our primaries. Since NY has closed primaries, I couldn't vote. One of the primaries was for mayor of my city. Since the Republicans aren't even bothering to put up a candidate, the winner of the Democratic primary will be our new mayor in 5 months. So I have no voice in who my mayor is. I've heard the same thing is happening down the road in Buffalo - no Republican candidate so the winner of Democratic primary will be mayor.

The point is, I live in an area where there is effectively only one party and the other almost given up. As most of you should be aware, most dictatorships have only one legal party. Yes, the Republicans still control the county legislature but I don't think that will last much longer. Yes, I put a lot of blame on the Republican party for given up on the region.

All that being said, does anyone really want to tell me my vote matters anymore? Does anyone want to argue that democracy can survive with only one effective party?

[seanD]

Mass migrants out of NY and Cali share your sentiment apparently.

[Stoic]

Even if you have no chance of casting the deciding vote, your vote matters. Politicians (and political parties) adapt their positions to try to capture a majority of the vote. If you don't bother to vote, that tips the scale (ever so slightly) in a direction away from the positions you would prefer they take.

To put it another way, the moderates in the Democratic party have a stronger position if there is a sizable number of Republicans who prefer them over the liberals, even if there is no chance for a Republican to be elected. (I'm assuming you would prefer to be governed by moderate Democrats than by liberal Democrats.)

[Thoughtful Monk]

Even if you have no chance of casting the deciding vote, your vote matters. Politicians (and political parties) adapt their positions to try to capture a majority of the vote. If you don't bother to vote, that tips the scale (ever so slightly) in a direction away from the positions you would prefer they take.

To put it another way, the moderates in the Democratic party have a stronger position if there is a sizable number of Republicans who prefer them over the liberals, even if there is no chance for a Republican to be elected. (I'm assuming you would prefer to be governed by moderate Democrats than by liberal Democrats.)

I'm sorry for not being clear. There is no Republican candidate to vote for so I can't tip the scales as you described.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Mass migrants out of NY and Cali share your sentiment apparently.

But that doesn't solve the problem of keeping democracy alive. All we're doing is dividing the county into the Democratic dictatorship; the Republican dictatorship; and what are probably a decreasing number of swing states. I think to keep democracy going, you need at least two viable parties in all elections.

[KingsGambit]

Someone once made a statement that struck me as wrong but I could not immediately point out why:

"I am a citizen of heaven, not of Earth. It is not my place to meddle in other countries' affairs."

[Stoic]

I'm sorry for not being clear. There is no Republican candidate to vote for so I can't tip the scales as you described.

There are other elective offices than mayor, and even for mayor, you can write in someone.

[seanD]

But that doesn't solve the problem of keeping democracy alive. All we're doing is dividing the county into the Democratic dictatorship; the Republican dictatorship; and what are probably a decreasing number of swing states. I think to keep democracy going, you need at least two viable parties in all elections.

I hate to play the left/right paradigm game here, but considering what the left is offering, and has been offering, a Republican controlled state would be a utopia in comparison. In fact, I'd even settle for a state ruled by Bush and Cheney over the woke authoritarian critical race theory, intersectionality, pro- racism, pro-segregation, covid totalitarianism lunacy the left is offering.

[Terraceth]

California's "Jungle primary" system seems like it would solve your problem. The way that works is that anyone who's interested runs (meaning multiple people from the same party can run) and anyone can vote in it. Then if no one gets a majority, the top 2 vote getters go into the main election and the voters choose between them.

Unfortunately, it isn't without its own issues, as it can result in some weird results in who the top 2 are. A better option seems like what Alaska just adopted, a top 4 ranked choice election--basically, you have the open jungle primary where everyone can run, then if no one gets an outright majority, the top 4 vote-getters go into the actual main election, which is resolved by ranked choice voting. (I believe that if 4 or fewer people run to begin with, they just skip the primary entirely and go to the main election)

They haven't done it yet (it just passed by referendum last year) so I guess we'll see how it works out in practice, but it does seem like it would solve your issues while suffering less from the problems that the top 2 jungle primary system does.