is 'voter turnout' a spook?

[WaveBreak]

In the dialogues of Plato, the founding father of Greek Philosophy – Socrates – is portrayed as hugely pessimistic about the whole business of democracy. In Book Six of The Republic, Plato describes Socrates falling into conversation with a character called Adeimantus and trying to get him to see the flaws of democracy by comparing a society to a ship. If you were heading out on a journey by sea, asks Socrates, who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel? Just anyone or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring? The latter of course, says Adeimantus, so why then, responds Socrates, do we keep thinking that any old person should be fit to judge who should be a ruler of a country?
Socrates’s point is that voting in an election is a skill, not a random intuition. And like any skill, it needs to be taught systematically to people. Letting the citizenry vote without an education is as irresponsible as putting them in charge of a trireme sailing to Samos in a storm.

Nowadays, there is a huge push for people to go out and vote. "We fought for the right to vote, so go out and do it."
So people go out and vote en masse (although still not enough according to most) yet they don't know what they're voting for. They're just voting for image.

During the 1960 election, Nixon faced off against Kennedy on the radio, and Nixon was winning. However, shortly after they did the same thing again but on television and suddenly Kennedy, a handsome young man, won against the not very attractive Nixon. What was this based upon? Nothing, just image.
During the 2016 election, random people where asked who they vote for, Hillary or Trump. Then, after saying who they were in favor for, they were given policies that were actually from the opponent yet attributed to the people they would vote for. They all agreed with those statements. Of course, when they heard the twist, they were shocked and embarrassed. They did no research, they simply voted according to image.

What is the point of voter turnout when most don't know what they are voting for?

 

[Red Hood]

"With voter turnout at all-time lows, not voting makes me more American."

 

[WaveBreak]

"With voter turnout at all-time lows, not voting makes me more American."

I'm not an american. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to have completely misunderstood the whole purpose of this thread. It's about the pointlessness of people voting despite not even knowing what policies their representative stand for. Because they don't read or do research. This makes your comment very ironic, unless you're of course just doing this as a joke.

 

[Dialtone]

 

[The Mass Shooter Ron Soye]

"Voter turnout" is mostly a partisan effort to get the people you want to vote to Pokemon Go to the polls, although there are some nonpartisan voter turnout efforts.

Sophisticated data collection is used to guide voter turnout. They don't care if you're as dumb as a rock, they only care if they can get you to vote for their candidates. Alternatively, they want to discourage the wrong people from voting, maybe with demoralizing news stories or banner ads.

https://archive.ph/tWyiK

In the 2008 presidential election, Obama’s targeters had assigned every voter in the country a pair of scores based on the probability that the individual would perform two distinct actions that mattered to the campaign: casting a ballot and supporting Obama. These scores were derived from an unprecedented volume of ongoing survey work. For each battleground state every week, the campaign’s call centers conducted 5,000 to 10,000 so-called short-form interviews that quickly gauged a voter’s preferences, and 1,000 interviews in a long-form version that was more like a traditional poll. To derive individual-level predictions, algorithms trawled for patterns between these opinions and the data points the campaign had assembled for every voter—as many as one thousand variables each, drawn from voter registration records, consumer data warehouses, and past campaign contacts.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

Spooks are spooks

 

[Red Hood]

I'm not an american. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to have completely misunderstood the whole purpose of this thread. It's about the pointlessness of people voting despite not even knowing what policies their representative stand for. Because they don't read or do research. This makes your comment very ironic, unless you're of course just doing this as a joke.

It was just a Hank Hill quote, I assure you it's a joke.

 

[Narutard]

Friendly reminder that the only reason why Plato’s Socrates doesn’t like democracy is because Plato never stopped being assmad about how Athens democratically sentenced Socrates to death (25 years prior to writing the republic).

 

[Equivocal_Iki]

Democrats count on that the typical apolitical person would lean democrat by osmosis. I only hear them go "I don't care who you're voting for, just vote!"

Voting is how the regime legitimizes itself. Imagine if voter turnout was 1%. The government would have a hard time doing whatever it wants saying "if you didn't vote, you can't complain".

 

[WaveBreak]

It was just a Hank Hill quote, I assure you it's a joke.

ah my bad, I never watched king of the hill. damn, you got me replying to hank hill lmao

Friendly reminder that the only reason why Plato’s Socrates doesn’t like democracy is because Plato never stopped being assmad about how Athens democratically sentenced Socrates to death (25 years prior to writing the republic).

I'm assuming that's just pure speculation on your part. I remember there's another socrates quote just like this actually, but it's horses instead of ships.

 

[Narutard]

I'm assuming that's just pure speculation on your part. I remember there's another socrates quote just like this actually, but it's horses instead of ships.

You should read up on Socrates’ relationship with the 30 tyrants (and alcibiades), and Plato’s elitism.

 

[WaveBreak]

You should read up on Socrates’ relationship with the 30 tyrants (and alcibiades), and Plato’s elitism.

I'm fully aware. It's in that sense your word against mine. Personally I think that socrates had enough influence on plato that plato wrote down two different versions of socrates talking about democracy in a similar way. Obviously plato adds his own twist, but it's impossible to know for sure just how much. At the end of the day all we have is plato-influenced-by socrates, so I guess that is who I will quote. The name doesn't matter that much to me anyway, it's the statement I agree with, may that be Plato or Socrates, or the medieval monk copying them and twisting their words

 

[Narutard]

The name doesn't matter that much to me anyway, it's the statement I agree with, may that be Plato or Socrates, or the medieval monk copying them and twisting their words

Chances are anyone who upholds a political theory like Plato’s would think only themselves fit to rule. It’s only agreeable for as long as you imagine yourself as the philosopher king.

 

[WaveBreak]

Chances are anyone who upholds a political theory like Plato’s would think only themselves fit to rule. It’s only agreeable for as long as you imagine yourself as the philosopher king.

To me that feels like another strawman. What’s wrong with for example a simple test asking you to select 3 policies that the candidate you intent to vote for? After all, if you want to vote on that candidate you should know what they stand for, or do you disagree?

 

[gang weeder]

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that letting anyone vote willy-nilly with no qualifiers is an unmitigated disaster. The only policy that this consistently produces is more government spending and more gibs. The vote needs to be restricted to those who are actually worthy of voting. You could have all kinds of arguments and debates about how to actually do that, but bottom line is you want people who actually have a stake in the nation to be the ones voting, and to exclude layabouts who are only interested in gibs.

 

[Narutard]

What’s wrong with for example a simple test asking you to select 3 policies that the candidate you intent to vote for?

Voting against someone and institutional information poverty. Policies will be enacted to prevent voting for the other guy.
No one likes it when people disagree with them, and policies that exclude participation will be abused accordingly sooner or later. It’s why people usually want the policy in the first place, not realising it can also be used against them.

It’s also what I meant by imagining yourself as philosopher king; we all think we’re on the right side of history, and have a hard time imagining ourself otherwise. No, the other just doesn’t get it and idiots like him shouldn’t be allowed to participate (ugh, geez, sigh).
It’s always tempting to exclude the other for a myriad of reasons, but my preference goes out to include them instead. The system is there for the people and if the people vote contrary to their own interests then they didn’t fail the system, but the system failed them.

After all, if you want to vote on that candidate you should know what they stand for, or do you disagree?

If only real life was as simple as political theory. I can easily agree with you in theory, not in practice.
I’m not trying to be an edgy contrarian fyi. My point is that theoretical proposals for a just society will be interpreted differently by everyone. Everyone wants it, but no one agrees on what it is or how to establish it once you start moving away from (abstract) theory. My just is your unjust, the end that justifies your means mean my end etc.

I hope we can at least agree that people are too focused on their material wealth nowadays and vote accordingly, and don’t place enough value on virtue and agape.
At any rate, I like to imagine that the amount of idiots voting for my guy is roughly the same as the amount voting for your guy, as foolish as this line of reasoning may be.

 

[xX_rAcE_wAr_420_Xx]

Back in the day, only people who had skin in the game could vote (in theory) and tended to be wealthier, more educated types who would sit and consider the impact on the health of the nation (in theory). Now, every dumb nigger can vote, and most just go straight down the party line and pattern match to what their community says is good.

Politicians want the populace to be niggercattle, masses don't really care because the kayfabe impacts their happiness just as much as material reality. Gas prices suck, but it's "okay" because it's Russia's fault. Your town has no job prospects, but it's "okay" because it's illegal immigrants' faults. When people talk about voter turnout, they're talking about activating predictable retards with red meat issues like abortion and gun rights. That's why these issues will never be conclusively decided.

 

[gang weeder]

Back in the day, only people who had skin in the game could vote (in theory) and tended to be wealthier, more educated types who would sit and consider the impact on the health of the nation (in theory). Now, every dumb nigger can vote, and most just go straight down the party line and pattern match to what their community says is good.

Politicians want the populace to be niggercattle, masses don't really care because the kayfabe impacts their happiness just as much as material reality. Gas prices suck, but it's "okay" because it's Russia's fault. Your town has no job prospects, but it's "okay" because it's illegal immigrants' faults. When people talk about voter turnout, they're talking about activating predictable retards with red meat issues like abortion and gun rights. That's why these issues will never be conclusively decided.

Agree. Another disconnect that has cropped up in the modern globalist world, which was much less prevalent in pre-modern times where all these norms about muh democracy developed, is the rise of a transnational elite. In the 1800s the assumption was that people hailing from a nation would act primarily if not solely in its interest and not for the interests of foreign states, and at the time, that was probably a reasonable thing to take for granted. Not so much now that half of our government are dual Israeli citizens, and can easily lead the cattle-citizenry to support whatever policies benefit Israel through the controlled media.

 

[gang weeder]

Voting against someone and institutional information poverty. Policies will be enacted to prevent voting for the other guy.
No one likes it when people disagree with them, and policies that exclude participation will be abused accordingly sooner or later. It’s why people usually want the policy in the first place, not realising it can also be used against them.

It’s also what I meant by imagining yourself as philosopher king; we all think we’re on the right side of history, and have a hard time imagining ourself otherwise. No, the other just doesn’t get it and idiots like him shouldn’t be allowed to participate (ugh, geez, sigh).
It’s always tempting to exclude the other for a myriad of reasons, but my preference goes out to include them instead. The system is there for the people and if the people vote contrary to their own interests then they didn’t fail the system, but the system failed them.

I think this attitude reflects the failure of the current thinking about "muh democracy." Whereas this line of thinking correctly deduces that absolute exclusion (i.e. everyone is excluded from policy making except for 1 person, an all-powerful king who holds absolute sway) is usually pretty bad, it then goes to the complete opposite extreme that absolutely *everybody* must be included in politics no matter who it is, and just blindly assumes that is going to work out well without ever considering the possibility that maybe some people should be excluded and some people shouldn't be.

When you seek to include absolutely *everyone* with no regards for any intervening factors, you get our current state of total dysfunction where politics is mostly just about hurting whoever you perceive to be the Bad People due to fundamentally incompatible values/worldviews coming into conflict. Two blobs of vengeful people voting on which group gets to oppress or potentially destroy the other is not a well-ordered system of government, and it's entirely predictable that people living under such a system might start to see the appeal of a dictator who simply settles the dispute in their favor once and for all.

If only real life was as simple as political theory. I can easily agree with you in theory, not in practice.
I’m not trying to be an edgy contrarian fyi. My point is that theoretical proposals for a just society will be interpreted differently by everyone. Everyone wants it, but no one agrees on what it is or how to establish it once you start moving away from (abstract) theory. My just is your unjust, the end that justifies your means mean my end etc.

Hence a nation should be based on broad agreement on certain fundamentals, with disagreement then permitted about the specifics, but with those who refuse to accept the fundamentals being excluded. We used to have this to some degree in the United States with a culture of broad agreement on many social/cultural/moral norms, but we had no mechanism to protect ourselves from subversion by activists pushing fundamentally incompatible norms and thus undermining the foundation of our polity.

I hope we can at least agree that people are too focused on their material wealth nowadays and vote accordingly, and don’t place enough value on virtue and agape.
At any rate, I like to imagine that the amount of idiots voting for my guy is roughly the same as the amount voting for your guy, as foolish as this line of reasoning may be.

In a political atmosphere of aggression, no one gets to be smart or stupid, everyone just votes for their tribe.