[RonanTheGrey]

Here's the problem:

Those people have a right to be wrong. That's why your vote counts as much as theirs does. The space that that leaves is where leadership is supposed to come in, in order to tilt the balance one way or the other. If a good leader doesn't arise, that's probably the problem you should be trying to solve.

The elitism of "we know better than you" has been used to justify some pretty horrific chapters in human history. Whether you like it or not, it is a much better state of being for the uninformed to vote, than the alternative.

[munk-a]

I think attributing it to "having the right to be wrong" is overly simplistic and you're missing a big chunk of what the core problem is - when you walk into a voting booth you are allowed to[1] check either the D or the R box. If you've followed a few rounds of elections chances are you've held your nose at least one of the times you've voted. Can you be a member of the GOP that is pretty well convinced that while the conservative courts might overturn Roe vs. Wade that gay marriage is essentially set in stone at this point? I think that's reasonable, I actually think that's pretty correct... No matter how extreme of a Mike Pence we get in office gay marriage is here to stay - if you're taking that as a given then maybe you're concerned about gun rights or the economy of one of a plethora of issues.

We're all complicated rainbows of opinions and when voting day comes around we're forced to either be red or blue and that's a problem.

1. Effectively, obviously you can vote third party by FPTP single slot elections make this incredibly ineffective - sorry... I really really wish this weren't the case.

[RonanTheGrey]

100% with you that FPTP was a mistake and should be rectified - I've seen some pretty good proposals of how ranked choice voting could work and would result in much more equitable outcomes.

[Spivak]

I would never say they shouldn’t vote and if I implied that then that was my mistake. My only point is that disparaging people who appear “party loyal” ignores the motivations that underpin that “loyalty”. On average people are pretty smart and I don’t think it’s too difficult to see some of the very real reasons why, at least nationally, people vote against one party or the other.

The joke about minorities begrudgingly huddling around the Democratic Party exists for a reason.

[RonanTheGrey]

Ah, ok. Good points... So, I have been around awhile -- 6 presidential elections and many more smaller ones.. I got to thinking about this and I realized that at some point, the national conversation changed from 'who you vote for and why' to 'who you vote against and what horrible things will happen if they win'.

To be fair that kind of rhetoric has existed since even the earliest days of the US, but I think on the whole voting has historically been seen as something you DO rather than something you use to fight against. The change in balance is... worrying.

[srtjstjsj]

Since 1974 every election's plurality major issue has been abortion or war, exactly "who you vote against and what horrible things will happen if they win"

Abortion will be banned, Bush will start a war, Obama will create the world's first Muslim Socialist state

[munk-a]

This is precisely the effect of having a two party system. Negative campaign ads help you as much as they hurt the other guy - Negative campaign ads are also a more effective way to spend your money. Thus we've seen extreme polarization in politics as parties have stopped needing to say what they'll do - and started fear mongering about what the other guys will do.

It's one reason I've been quite happy to see the green new deal (or Biden's totally not the green new deal but most of it) talked about in debates - it's actually a policy position.

[srtjstjsj]

> On average people are pretty smart

This is a vacuous statement. How smart is pretty smart?