You seem to have honorable intentions, but these exchanges are argumentum ad nauseam.
If you have to tell people why they should vote against Trump, instead of why they should vote for Biden, then he’s already lost.
I'm starting to suspect that the arguments seem as nauseam because I'm trying to reason people out of a decision they didn't reason themselves into - i.e. they're voting emotionally, and not logically. Inconvenient questions get ignored, and we're left with very surface level arguments.
I particularly saw some users comments reflected in this excerpt in the retrospective voting article you shared:
In his classic book “The Responsible Electorate,” the late Harvard University political scientist V.O. Key Jr. suggests that judging a president’s or his party’s performance in office presents a perfect opportunity for the voter to play “rational God of vengeance or reward.”
Perhaps they're voting this way to try and recapture efficacy in a world where they feel they have very little.
You seem genuinely interested in this topic. One I spent a considerable time researching last year and left me disillusioned. A study that may help is from professors Adam Dyne and John Holbein: Noisy Retrospection: The Effect of Party Control on Policy Outcomes. It’s quite a read but demonstrates:
Our results suggest that voters may struggle to truly hold government coalitions accountable, as objective performance metrics appear to be largely out of the immediate control of political coalitions.
Simply put, in large elections with millions of people, our votes count very little.
We should still vote. It matters for local elections, but when it gets to the state level and higher, the impact of our votes have little to no effect.
You seem to have honorable intentions, but these exchanges are argumentum ad nauseam.
If you have to tell people why they should vote against Trump, instead of why they should vote for Biden, then he’s already lost.
I'm starting to suspect that the arguments seem as nauseam because I'm trying to reason people out of a decision they didn't reason themselves into - i.e. they're voting emotionally, and not logically. Inconvenient questions get ignored, and we're left with very surface level arguments.
I particularly saw some users comments reflected in this excerpt in the retrospective voting article you shared:
Perhaps they're voting this way to try and recapture efficacy in a world where they feel they have very little.
You seem genuinely interested in this topic. One I spent a considerable time researching last year and left me disillusioned. A study that may help is from professors Adam Dyne and John Holbein: Noisy Retrospection: The Effect of Party Control on Policy Outcomes. It’s quite a read but demonstrates:
Simply put, in large elections with millions of people, our votes count very little.
# An Expert Explains Why Your Vote Won't Matter
His study: The Brennan–Lomasky Test of Expressive Voting: When Impressive Probability Differences Are Meaningless
We should still vote. It matters for local elections, but when it gets to the state level and higher, the impact of our votes have little to no effect.