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.
"We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"
Funny because that's exactly what I think of these protest non-voters. They've tried nothing (literally nothing because they don't vote) and they're all out of ideas.
Is this the point where I point out that the dems have had all 3 (house, senate, presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years? They need all 3 to actually pass anything progressive. But the non-voters never try to give them any real control.
What about the ones that vote every single time, and still never get what they wanted?
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.
"We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"
Funny because that's exactly what I think of these protest non-voters. They've tried nothing (literally nothing because they don't vote) and they're all out of ideas.
Is this the point where I point out that the dems have had all 3 (house, senate, presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years? They need all 3 to actually pass anything progressive. But the non-voters never try to give them any real control.
What about the ones that vote every single time, and still never get what they wanted?