• very_well_lost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Unfortunately “highly engaged voters” aren’t a large segment of the population. If you want to win elections, you have to cater to the voters who only hear the occasional sound bite and then just make a decision based on vibes and/or what their friends and chosen media propaganda factory tell them.

    No, it’s not an ideal world, but it’s the world we live in, and it’s been that way for a long time — more than long enough that the DNC should have gotten it’s act together by now. And yet… here we are again…

    • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      35 minutes ago

      Things like this are what make me struggle with the question of whether or not some sort of voting license would be a bad thing.

      It would, of course, unequivocally be a bad thing. But would it be worse than this? I don’t know anymore. On one hand, every living human deserves a free and fair voice in the choice of their governmental representatives. On the other hand, maybe you should have to prove you know what you’re voting for before you’re allowed to vote. Because a popular vote decided primarily by “vibes” from criminally underinformed voters is not something that any republic is able to survive long term.

      • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 minutes ago

        I don’t think this would have the effect that you want in practice. One of the biggest obstacles Democrats face is getting their own voters to care enough to vote. Republicans, despite being less popular as a percentage of Americans, don’t struggle nearly as much getting their supporters to the polls.

        Adding additional barriers to voting will decrease voter turnout across the board, and this will absolutely hurt Democrats more than it will hurt Republicans.