Actual analyses done on this topic by Pew, Breugel, and National Affairs suggest this effect is largely not true. When considering the entire electorate, a significant number of non-voters lean Republican or are politically unaffiliated and would not support the democratic party.
Further research indicates that, despite popular belief, higher voter turnout does not consistently benefit either party across the board. Over the past 70 years, there has been no strong correlation between increases in turnout and the Democratic vote share in presidential or midterm elections. This suggests that while higher turnout could marginally favor Democrats, it might not drastically alter outcomes.
Democrats could gain some advantage from 100% turnout due to the inclusion of historically underrepresented groups, but the overall impact would likely be less substantial than expected, as the partisan balance among non-voters is more evenly distributed than commonly thought.
The notion that 100% voter turnout would deliver sweeping political control for Democrats is just a comforting illusion—one that feeds into the fantasy that everyone secretly agrees with you. Both parties indulge in this kind of wishful thinking, convinced that non-voters would tip the scales in their favor if only they showed up.
The truth is that America is fiercely divided, and non-voters are just as politically varied as regular voters. Believing otherwise is just a way to avoid confronting how split the country really is.
Also, popular opinion tends to shift to the right when times are tough and times are tough. You can see this happening in Europe as well, every European country.
I listed the sources. If you can’t manage the independent volition to do a simple Google search, than I’m afraid you’re simply going to have to remain ignorant.
Where? I do not see a single source. I see you referencing that such sources exist somewhere, but I fail to see any titles, authors, or web links to actually provide a specific source.
The author and agencies are listed. It’s not my responsibility to do the labor of educating you further than I already have. If you need to be hand fed links, then you’re going to remain exactly as you are. I’ve already put enough time into the post. This is close enough to sealioning in my estimation for me to block you. Good luck.
Actual analyses done on this topic by Pew, Breugel, and National Affairs suggest this effect is largely not true. When considering the entire electorate, a significant number of non-voters lean Republican or are politically unaffiliated and would not support the democratic party.
Further research indicates that, despite popular belief, higher voter turnout does not consistently benefit either party across the board. Over the past 70 years, there has been no strong correlation between increases in turnout and the Democratic vote share in presidential or midterm elections.
I am not sure how to find this. I actually already looked at a Pew article earliee today and didn’t happen to see it there.
I’ll link it again and look through it again to see if it’s there.
Further, your second point is lacking any source including an author.
Last, whatever source you’re quoting specifically important because I’m highly curious what the verbiage actually is. There is a world of difference between someone who “leans” Republican versus someone who will never vote Democrat.
Eta, from above Pew source:
Adults who voted in at least one election during the period divide evenly between Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party or Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in their current party affiliation (48% each). The subset who voted in all three elections are similarly divided (49% Democrats, 50% Republicans). Citizens who did not vote in any of the three tilt Republican by 46% to 41%.
Reflecting these patterns, Republicans won a majority of votes among those who said they voted in person on Election Day, 60% to 38%. Democrats won – by an identical margin – voters who said they voted by mail or absentee ballot. Those who said they voted in person before Election Day were divided: 53% supported Republican candidates, while 46% voted for Democratic candidates.
Perhaps if Dems were able to pass easier mail in voting or better legislation generally, people would be more likely to vote for them
The government keeps fucking everyone but the democrats blame the republicans for it, and the republicans the democrats for it, not realizing they are talking about the exact same group of people.
I’m shocked either party can maintain the illusion at this point but thats just my perspective.
And comparing the two parties like they are both the same within this broken system is counterproductive. One party is openly planning an authoritarian coup, and the other is far too beholden to the capitalist class. Voting third party or abstaining (same thing) is a vote to end whatever shreds of democracy we still have.
Vote for the lesser evil and make a scene about whatever you don’t like but don’t pretend the two parties are the same. It kills morale and it’s bullshit to boot.
Vote for the lesser evil and make a scene about whatever you don’t like but don’t pretend the two parties are the same. It kills morale and it’s bullshit to boot.
You are watching a victim forced to give a gun to either
sleazeball or
a psychopath who has an explicitly outlined plan to use the gun to get more guns and kill as many people as possible.
Instead of urging the victim to choose the lesser evil you are doing… nothing? Bravely doing nothing so that next time… the sleazeball will make better choices or arguments? Or maybe so that next time the victim will learn their lesson and find a third option?
Well I wouldnt tell that person to go on message boards and shit on every single person who shows the slightest bit of hesitance to vote democrat.
I also wouldnt use false equivalencies to prove my point either.
It might come as a shock to you, but there are more than just two scenarios that exist. You can bark at me all you want but you care more about predicting who wins than affecting change, so we aren’t even talking about the same things.
Well I wouldnt tell that person to go on message boards and shit on every single person who shows the slightest bit of hesitance to vote democrat.
Lol. You aren’t hesitant, you are falsely equating a party that is deeply flawed and a party actively working to undermine and steal an election because they know that their policies are so disturbingly bad and unpopular that even the disproportionate power their given by the electoral college can’t sustain them unless they cheat.
There are more than two outcomes, but I know that several very possible outcomes result in christofascism ruling the USA for the foreseeable future.
You can bark at me all you want but you care more about predicting who wins than affecting change, so we aren’t even talking about the same things.
Predicting who wins? What are you even talking about. I don’t know who is going to win so my point is all hands on deck to preserve what flawed democracy we still have left. If you plan is to sit this one out in some misguided attempt to “affect change” by doing nothing, then I’m going to bark.
It’s not really a strawman argument, it’s closer to an ad hominem. In fact, the argument you are making is closer to a strawman.
“A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” -Wikipedia
Saying that “if you can’t tell the difference between the two parties is a you problem” is attacking the person not the issue. Saying that the difference between the two parties isn’t the problem (when that’s what is being argued) and instead it’s the system is by definition a strawman. Using the strawman to make the discussion about the futility of voting in a flawed system just goes to show how much of a strawman it is.
Nope, the thread they were responding is this one (https://lemmy.one/comment/13175909) which is about the two parties (specifically whether higher turnout would benefit one party or the other). Someone else replied saying that it’s about the system being broken (itself a strawman). This guy made an attack on the person, but was still focused on the two party system. Then you made a strawman as well.
Actual analyses done on this topic by Pew, Breugel, and National Affairs suggest this effect is largely not true. When considering the entire electorate, a significant number of non-voters lean Republican or are politically unaffiliated and would not support the democratic party.
Further research indicates that, despite popular belief, higher voter turnout does not consistently benefit either party across the board. Over the past 70 years, there has been no strong correlation between increases in turnout and the Democratic vote share in presidential or midterm elections. This suggests that while higher turnout could marginally favor Democrats, it might not drastically alter outcomes.
Democrats could gain some advantage from 100% turnout due to the inclusion of historically underrepresented groups, but the overall impact would likely be less substantial than expected, as the partisan balance among non-voters is more evenly distributed than commonly thought.
The notion that 100% voter turnout would deliver sweeping political control for Democrats is just a comforting illusion—one that feeds into the fantasy that everyone secretly agrees with you. Both parties indulge in this kind of wishful thinking, convinced that non-voters would tip the scales in their favor if only they showed up.
The truth is that America is fiercely divided, and non-voters are just as politically varied as regular voters. Believing otherwise is just a way to avoid confronting how split the country really is.
Also, popular opinion tends to shift to the right when times are tough and times are tough. You can see this happening in Europe as well, every European country.
Sources please
I listed the sources. If you can’t manage the independent volition to do a simple Google search, than I’m afraid you’re simply going to have to remain ignorant.
Where? I do not see a single source. I see you referencing that such sources exist somewhere, but I fail to see any titles, authors, or web links to actually provide a specific source.
The author and agencies are listed. It’s not my responsibility to do the labor of educating you further than I already have. If you need to be hand fed links, then you’re going to remain exactly as you are. I’ve already put enough time into the post. This is close enough to sealioning in my estimation for me to block you. Good luck.
I am not sure how to find this. I actually already looked at a Pew article earliee today and didn’t happen to see it there.
I’ll link it again and look through it again to see if it’s there.
Further, your second point is lacking any source including an author.
Last, whatever source you’re quoting specifically important because I’m highly curious what the verbiage actually is. There is a world of difference between someone who “leans” Republican versus someone who will never vote Democrat.
Eta, from above Pew source:
Perhaps if Dems were able to pass easier mail in voting or better legislation generally, people would be more likely to vote for them
The government keeps fucking everyone but the democrats blame the republicans for it, and the republicans the democrats for it, not realizing they are talking about the exact same group of people.
I’m shocked either party can maintain the illusion at this point but thats just my perspective.
If you don’t see a difference between the current political parties, that seems like a you problem.
That’s a strawman argument. Pointing out that one of them is worse than the other ignores the real problem - the system is broken.
And comparing the two parties like they are both the same within this broken system is counterproductive. One party is openly planning an authoritarian coup, and the other is far too beholden to the capitalist class. Voting third party or abstaining (same thing) is a vote to end whatever shreds of democracy we still have.
Vote for the lesser evil and make a scene about whatever you don’t like but don’t pretend the two parties are the same. It kills morale and it’s bullshit to boot.
Soooo… End of an empire?
There are better ways to end an empire than making a christofascist the emperor and hoping it burns to the ground eventually.
Oh sure but this
Doesn’t sound like it has a happy resolution.
I’m not sure what you are saying or what it has to do with ending an empire.
I find voting against my values to be a killer of morale, and bullshit to boot.
Then your values are flawed.
You are watching a victim forced to give a gun to either
sleazeball or
a psychopath who has an explicitly outlined plan to use the gun to get more guns and kill as many people as possible.
Instead of urging the victim to choose the lesser evil you are doing… nothing? Bravely doing nothing so that next time… the sleazeball will make better choices or arguments? Or maybe so that next time the victim will learn their lesson and find a third option?
Well I wouldnt tell that person to go on message boards and shit on every single person who shows the slightest bit of hesitance to vote democrat.
I also wouldnt use false equivalencies to prove my point either.
It might come as a shock to you, but there are more than just two scenarios that exist. You can bark at me all you want but you care more about predicting who wins than affecting change, so we aren’t even talking about the same things.
Lol. You aren’t hesitant, you are falsely equating a party that is deeply flawed and a party actively working to undermine and steal an election because they know that their policies are so disturbingly bad and unpopular that even the disproportionate power their given by the electoral college can’t sustain them unless they cheat.
There are more than two outcomes, but I know that several very possible outcomes result in christofascism ruling the USA for the foreseeable future.
Predicting who wins? What are you even talking about. I don’t know who is going to win so my point is all hands on deck to preserve what flawed democracy we still have left. If you plan is to sit this one out in some misguided attempt to “affect change” by doing nothing, then I’m going to bark.
It’s not really a strawman argument, it’s closer to an ad hominem. In fact, the argument you are making is closer to a strawman.
“A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.” -Wikipedia
Saying that “if you can’t tell the difference between the two parties is a you problem” is attacking the person not the issue. Saying that the difference between the two parties isn’t the problem (when that’s what is being argued) and instead it’s the system is by definition a strawman. Using the strawman to make the discussion about the futility of voting in a flawed system just goes to show how much of a strawman it is.
It’s a strawman because they’re trying to shift the focus from one thing (the system is broken) to another (Republicans are bad)
Nope, the thread they were responding is this one (https://lemmy.one/comment/13175909) which is about the two parties (specifically whether higher turnout would benefit one party or the other). Someone else replied saying that it’s about the system being broken (itself a strawman). This guy made an attack on the person, but was still focused on the two party system. Then you made a strawman as well.