Politicians famously consider the opinions of people who don't vote. /s
Maybe they ought to? There's quite a lot of potential votes out there. Also want to add that I always vote, and politicians never consider my opinion anyway.
Reliable demographics or voting blocks get preferential treatment over fair-weather voters. If you want to know why even the GOP won't overtly kill social security or medicare (unless they include a way to keep current recipients on benefits), it's because old people vote very reliably. Though with the modern day cultists this isn't as true anymore since MAGAs will happily let the GOP take everything from them if they think it will hurt their perceived political enemies.
This is just useful expenditure of political capital. As a politician you want to stick your neck out for groups that are definitely showing up.
Seems like a good way to ensure you have low turnout elections, with only die-hard party-heads participating. That way, elections are won or lost on how jazzed up you can get your base, and you never have to attract anyone new. That sounds bad enough, but I think who the politicians actually listen to are their donors. Anytime there is a conflict between what the donors want, and what the constituency wants... voters can get fucked.
Believe it or not, there are people in the center that switch votes. That's who they go after.
Still the same small pool of voters.
It's not die hards as you put it. They are swing voters. Every one counts double because you get a vote and take one away from the other party. Elections are won from the centre.
Sure, but I'm saying that in addition to the 'swing' voters, there is a huuuge pool of people that never or rarely vote. These are potential voters, many of whom could be energized by the right policies.
Ok let's say you gamble and try to get those guys by say doubling gas taxes.You just lost the center (worth double) on the hope that some of the people who never vote magically vote. See the problem?
I see a lot of problems.
Sounds like you're avoiding the point. I'll take that as a concession.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm saying, look this system is so shitty that half the people don't even bother participating in it. You've taken a pretty bad example of a policy to point out why neither party could possibly attract disengaged citizens. How about taxing billionaires out of existence to fund QOL upgrades for the rest of us? I bet that would gain more votes than it would lose, but something tells me the billionaire segment of the electorate is the one that matters most.
"Taxes! They want to raise taxes! They're coming for your hard earned money! That's all they do is raise taxes!"
And you just lost the center. We both know that's how they're going to spin it. In the HOPE (I choose that word very carefully) that the people that never vote will magically vote. You lose the guaranteed vote (which counts double) from people that are engaged, in the HOPE that some others maybe, possibly, hopefully, perhaps, show up. I think they'll just say "still not enough, so I'm still not voting in protest". The math does not work. Elections are won from the center.
I mean they do, insofar as it might be easier to convert someone not voting into someone voting for them than it is to convert someone voting for their opponent.
That's why you vote uncommitted. There's no way to ignore that message or use any of their usual excuses.
But the Democrats understand what they need to do in order to win election, they're just so latched to the corporate tit that they won't do it. Think they can get a few more gulps of that sweet lobby money before things get "serious". The pigs are too busy feeding to give a fuck about our democracy collapsing.
Politicians famously consider the opinions of people who don't vote. /s
Maybe they ought to? There's quite a lot of potential votes out there. Also want to add that I always vote, and politicians never consider my opinion anyway.
Reliable demographics or voting blocks get preferential treatment over fair-weather voters. If you want to know why even the GOP won't overtly kill social security or medicare (unless they include a way to keep current recipients on benefits), it's because old people vote very reliably. Though with the modern day cultists this isn't as true anymore since MAGAs will happily let the GOP take everything from them if they think it will hurt their perceived political enemies.
This is just useful expenditure of political capital. As a politician you want to stick your neck out for groups that are definitely showing up.
Seems like a good way to ensure you have low turnout elections, with only die-hard party-heads participating. That way, elections are won or lost on how jazzed up you can get your base, and you never have to attract anyone new. That sounds bad enough, but I think who the politicians actually listen to are their donors. Anytime there is a conflict between what the donors want, and what the constituency wants... voters can get fucked.
Believe it or not, there are people in the center that switch votes. That's who they go after.
Still the same small pool of voters.
It's not die hards as you put it. They are swing voters. Every one counts double because you get a vote and take one away from the other party. Elections are won from the centre.
Sure, but I'm saying that in addition to the 'swing' voters, there is a huuuge pool of people that never or rarely vote. These are potential voters, many of whom could be energized by the right policies.
Ok let's say you gamble and try to get those guys by say doubling gas taxes.You just lost the center (worth double) on the hope that some of the people who never vote magically vote. See the problem?
I see a lot of problems.
Sounds like you're avoiding the point. I'll take that as a concession.
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm saying, look this system is so shitty that half the people don't even bother participating in it. You've taken a pretty bad example of a policy to point out why neither party could possibly attract disengaged citizens. How about taxing billionaires out of existence to fund QOL upgrades for the rest of us? I bet that would gain more votes than it would lose, but something tells me the billionaire segment of the electorate is the one that matters most.
"Taxes! They want to raise taxes! They're coming for your hard earned money! That's all they do is raise taxes!"
And you just lost the center. We both know that's how they're going to spin it. In the HOPE (I choose that word very carefully) that the people that never vote will magically vote. You lose the guaranteed vote (which counts double) from people that are engaged, in the HOPE that some others maybe, possibly, hopefully, perhaps, show up. I think they'll just say "still not enough, so I'm still not voting in protest". The math does not work. Elections are won from the center.
I mean they do, insofar as it might be easier to convert someone not voting into someone voting for them than it is to convert someone voting for their opponent.
That's why you vote uncommitted. There's no way to ignore that message or use any of their usual excuses.
But the Democrats understand what they need to do in order to win election, they're just so latched to the corporate tit that they won't do it. Think they can get a few more gulps of that sweet lobby money before things get "serious". The pigs are too busy feeding to give a fuck about our democracy collapsing.