Voting is Depressing

[rogue06]

Pretty much - but the map does change over time. Much of the red territory now was once solidly blue and vice versa.

Virginia is an excellent example. Not that long ago it was solidly in the "red" category and over time has moved to be reliably "blue."

[KingsGambit]

Voting is a duty, first and foremost.

All votes count - and it was never about winning by 'just one vote' - it's about people having a say in who represents them. The idea is for a bunch of people to say the same thing or you end up with no representation at all - and ten thousand candidates.

Acknowledging that voting is meaningful on a macro level, I don't like the notion that voting is a duty or the idea of compulsory voting. Wide groups of ignorant people voting has at best a randomizing effect on the electorate. If people don't have the slightest clue what's going on, the only duty they have is to stay home.

[One Bad Pig]

Virginia is an excellent example. Not that long ago it was solidly in the "red" category and over time has moved to be reliably "blue."

...and before it was solidly "red" it was reliably "blue."

[Roy]

Pretty much - but the map does change over time. Much of the red territory now was once solidly blue and vice versa.

But IIRC that is not due entirely to do with changing voter views, and largely due to the two major US parties swapping their stances on several important issues such as social support and racial equality.

[Rational Gaze]

Voting largely achieves nothing other than merely deciding which group of wealthy politicians get to decide how to run our lives. Very rarely is anything of consequence ever achieved. For instance, despite most people in the UK voting to leave the European Union, the current government is dragging its heels and is seemingly delaying as much as possible. On the one hand, Theresa May has to pander to the Brexiteers in order to maintain political power (at least for the time being), but May, et al. are almost entirely Remainers. Another example would be the recent Catalanian vote on seceding from Spain. The Spanish government reacted to the vote by kicking out Catalan's president, and deploying riot police to stop people from voting.

I think the only thing of consequence resulting from any election or public vote would be Trump's ascendancy to the US presidency... although, despite not being a great result, is so far turning out to be better than the status quo... which says a lot about how awful American politicians are if someone like Trump can win. But hey, despite being a loudmouth and a braggart, with a penchant for ridiculous statements, he's done a better job s far than Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

[Teallaura]

But IIRC that is not due entirely to do with changing voter views, and largely due to the two major US parties swapping their stances on several important issues such as social support and racial equality.

Um, what? 'Racial equality' did break the ice - but the CRA of '64 couldn't have passed if voters hadn't changed their views over time.
*emphasis mine

Also, so I'm straight, was that supposed to be 'social support for racial equality' like I think?

[Teallaura]

Acknowledging that voting is meaningful on a macro level, I don't like the notion that voting is a duty or the idea of compulsory voting. Wide groups of ignorant people voting has at best a randomizing effect on the electorate. If people don't have the slightest clue what's going on, the only duty they have is to stay home.

Duty and compulsory are different things. The duty to vote carries with it the duty to be active and aware in the civic.

There are no 'knowledgeable' groups voting. With as many as six levels of government, that's never been the case. Ever. Not even when only land owners voted pre-Constitution.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with humans. Fortunately, it's worked better than anything else thus far.

[EvoUK]

For instance, despite most people in the UK voting to leave the European Union, the current government is dragging its heels and is seemingly delaying as much as possible. On the one hand, Theresa May has to pander to the Brexiteers in order to maintain political power (at least for the time being), but May, et al. are almost entirely Remainers.

Not really. Firstly, though technically a majority voted one way when asked a binary question on a deeply complex & interwoven subject in an advisory referendum. it was 52/48 - essentially split half way. The British were asked what they thought and we said 'don't know'. To simply say it was a majority implies that it was a significant one.

Also, the conservative party has put Brexiteers in major positions of Government, such as the Foreign secretary (who has not stopped embarrassing the UK further since he started), and more relevant - the Brexit Secretary is a Brexiteer. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum and the reason they can't get anywhere is because they can't agree what sort of Brexit they want, as all their promises of sunny uplands following the vote were essentially lies, and they cannot come up with an actual solution which won't cripple the country. They did not work out what they wanted to achieve in negotiations, despite wanting it for donkeys years. They started Article 50 despite still not knowing what they wanted, and now they're against the clock until time runs out & they crash out of the EU with no deal, which is what some of the more absurd lunatics such as Rees Mogg probably wanted from the beginning.

One of her cabinet ministers - a Brexiteer - has been forced to resign despite the PM May being so weak because she did a spot of freelancing as prime minister whilst on her hols. She has been replaced by one of the few non-useless backbenchers who is also a Brexiteer.

[Roy]

Um, what? 'Racial equality' did break the ice - but the CRA of '64 couldn't have passed if voters hadn't changed their views over time.
*emphasis mine

Also, so I'm straight, was that supposed to be 'social support for racial equality' like I think?

No, social support and racial equality - two separate issues. By 'social support' I mean the various social security measures such as unemployment monies, redundancy pay, child support etc.

[Teallaura]

No, social support and racial equality - two separate issues. By 'social support' I mean the various social security measures such as unemployment monies, redundancy pay, child support etc.

Okay, thanks.

[Terraceth]

There’s an argument in the UK for proportional representation, which basically means that everyone’s vote matters, and what you’re left with is a coalition government.

This means that all parties retain seats in government proportionate to their votes in the election (an oversimplification but the point remains).

Currently, it’s first past the post. Which means that like a republican in a democrat state, my vote doesn’t matter, unless everyone changes their mind & votes with me.

In the UK, this could technically be inacted, however it’s unlikely given that the two main parties gain a lot from the current system.

I’m assuming it’s more complicated where you boys & girls are.

No, it's pretty much the same thing in the US. Even the presidential election gets hit with this thanks to the electoral college, making your vote effectively pointless in determining the winner of the election if you don't live in a swing state or one of the two states that chooses their electors proportionally (Maine and Nebraska).

Though in terms of results, at least in the UK you get some people outside of Labour and Conservative into the parliament and one party doesn't always have a majority. In the US, the Democrats or Republicans will always have a majority in congress, and Congress is entirely made up of Republicans, Democrats, and "Independents" who are a Republican or Democrat in all but name.