12 ms·

Without commenting on the other issues, but something that struck me as very odd living in the USA, was how people in California appeared fully disenfranchised

Without commenting on the other issues, but something that struck me as very odd living in the USA, was how people in California appeared fully disenfranchised during presidential elections. Yes, as a Californian you can vote, but your vote is near guaranteed to have no effect, and as a result, neither of the sides cares to address your interests, solicit your opinion, advertise for your vote. It struck me as really bizarre.

terr-dav 4y ago
This is true for the vast majority of states, and the vast majority of people's interests. The political systems in this country have been shaped by -- and frankly, designed by -- by wealthy interests to make the US an oligarchy with various performances of democratic representation.
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  I’m not sure that’s the reason why it’s only worth campaigning in Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona and some other states during presidential elections. Also it is the system that was designed over 100-200 years ago. The problem is the lack of meaningful reform because the people in power are there only because of the current system. That’s the reason why is it so hard to change electoral system without some external/internal shock. And “unfortunately” US has been way too stable politically during the 20th century compared to most other countries.
cpurdy 4y ago
California has already passed the National Popular Vote bill. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation Republican controlled states don't want people's votes to count, so none of them have passed the bill.
- starkd 4y ago
  Not the point of this thread. Popular vote has nothing to do with how responsive or attentive a government is to voter's interests. You vote for a candidate as a whole, but there are likely still issues you disagree with. Voters' interests are largely unaddressed or ignored altogether.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    It is completely the point of 'voters in specific states are largely disenfranchised during presidential elections'.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Not the point of this thread. Popular vote has nothing to do with how responsive or attentive a government is to voter's interests Actually, it does: more specifically, degree of proportionality does, and antimajoritarianism (systems in which an absolute majority-preferred option can lose to a minority option) are an extreme case of nonproportionality. Having a powerful central executive elected by nonmajoritarian election itself weights the government to nonresponsiveness (though the US has many other factors reinforcing that.)
- yellowapple 4y ago
  In other words: California has promised to disenfranchise its own voters even more than is already the case. I can already see this backfiring spectacularly with a solidly-blue state like California being on the hook to put its electors toward a Republican popular vote winner.
  - cpurdy 4y ago
    That's a weird way to look at it. The many states that have agreed to this (have passed the bill) have simply accepted that the votes of the people is worth more than the feelings of the billionaires who have sponsored the Republican gerrymandering movement. Right now, effectively, the land votes, and the people's vote is often ignored. Wisconsin is a good example, where the Republicans keep losing the vote, but yet with less than 50% of the vote, they somehow have a super-majority in the legislature.
    - brewdad 4y ago
      It's not weird when it reflects the reality of the situation. It's the same reason we say voting third party is throwing your vote away. It's important to have more voices heard but in our first past the post system, voting for a candidate who can't get anywhere close to a third of the votes simply doesn't matter. I haven't read the bill but if certain states are committing themselves to popular distribution of their electoral votes while the red states stick to all or nothing, the reality is that 40% of CA's electoral votes go red and blue candidates don't have a chance at winning.
      - thalassophobia 4y ago
        If I'm not mistaken, the bill only goes in effect when the states that have signed it start making up the majority of the electoral college.
      - matthewdgreen 4y ago
        The bill only applies when states representing 270 electoral votes adopt it. Since 270 votes determine the winner of the EC, it doesn’t matter at all what the remaining states do. The states that sign on would be required to put their votes towards whichever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote, effectively ending the electoral college in all but name. There’s not really much to criticize here if you believe that electing presidents by popular vote is a good idea.
gruez 4y ago
>Yes, as a Californian you can vote, but your vote is near guaranteed to have no effect, and as a result, neither of the sides cares to address your interests, solicit your opinion, advertise for your vote. Isn't that partly their fault? If you're always going to vote for one party regardless of what they or the other party does, of course neither party is going to bother catering to you. It's kind of like declaring that you will always buy apple products, then complaining that apple doesn't address your grievances.
- bigfudge 4y ago
  That doesn’t follow. A similar proportion of electors in swing and non swing states could have fixed voting patterns. The only difference in California is that the proportion of fixed electors for each party is further from 50%. That is, it might be the case that only 10% of electors in any state are ever prepared to change their mind, but the ones in Ohio get more say than the ones in Cali.
  - joenot443 4y ago
    I think it makes perfect sense. Presumably, if one made the declaration (as many have) that for the rest of their life they’ll always and only vote Democrat, it wouldn’t be in the party’s best interest to cater to that voter’s preference, since that vote is already secured. Much better politics to focus their campaigning and policies on the more marginal voters who are undecided or may not vote at all. I’ve heard Americans lament about this exact concept and coming from Canada I don’t know what the solution. Sometimes I think Ross Perot was the country’s last shot at anything but the present status quo.
thereddaikon 4y ago
They aren't disenfranchised. Everyone knows which way California will go so they don't spend a lot of time campaigning there. Candidates have a limited amount of time and money. So they focus on the swing states. My state also votes pretty consistently and therefore doesn't get much campaigning. I don't feel like I am disenfranchised for it. And for everyone who is crying about the popular vote, there is a very good reason we don't do that. It was recognized from the start that if you do a strict popular vote. the more populous and wealthy areas would always call the shots and would dictate politics to the rest of the nation. At the time that meant Virginia. But it doesn't really matter who, the principle still holds. This was a compromise between populous areas and rural areas in order to get the union formed. If you switch to a pure popular vote then the nation would be run by a handful of mega cities like NYC, LA etc. That's not democracy. The system we have prevents that while still allowing for populous areas to matter. Getting rid of the electoral college would remove one of the main compromises our federal system is built on and in my opinion would be fair grounds for any state to secede. It would be comparable to throwing away parts of the Bill of Rights.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  I’ve heard this take before and it makes no sense to me. Areas don’t dictate anything. It’s people. Why should it matter where the people live? As it stands, people who live in smaller states have more say in national politics than people who live in bigger states.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    > As it stands, people who live in smaller states have more say in national politics than people who live in bigger states. Not for presidential elections, nobody cares about Delaware or Wyoming's 3 electors. Small-population states matter for the Senate where they're way over-represented. Not that they're not over-represented for the EC mind, but e.g. for their 0.2% of the national population Wyoming has 0.55% of the Electoral College, versus 2% of the Senate. By comparison California's 11.75% of the national population gives them 10% of the EC and... 2% of the Senate. States which have a say (or are heard really) during presidential elections are states with large enough populations (and thus EC) that it's worth spending time and dumping money there for campaigns, yet purple enough that there's a chance to swing them.
masklinn 4y ago
> Without commenting on the other issues, but something that struck me as very odd living in the USA, was how people in California appeared fully disenfranchised during presidential elections. That's the case of every state which is away enough from swing. Only "purple" states[0] matter during presidential elections. Then again, swing states only get pandered to for a few months every 4 years. [0] and Maine and Nebraska which use district voting, but at 4 and 5 electors they're to small to really matter
thewebcount 4y ago
This is the exact opposite of my experience. It's the only place where my elected officials were actually engaged. I received regular updates from my representatives without even asking for them. They just mailed all of their constituents flyers explaining the current issues and how it affects the community. I've lived in 5 different states and never saw anything like this in any of them except California. Go figure.
- hollerith 4y ago
  You missed the word "presidential".
- inetknght 4y ago
  > I've lived in 5 different states and never saw anything like this in any of them except California. I live in Texas, around Houston. Here we certainly do have representatives (but not members of the Senate) who send mail to constituents with information. Our Senators send emails once in a while, if you sign up for them. But good luck ever figuring out the real information from the spam and ~~malicious dis~~incorrect information and opinions.
scythe 4y ago
That's true recently. But only recently have political alignments been so rigid and predictable in the United States. California went for the Republicans from 1968–92, and before that was somewhat swingy. More generally, any single-winner election system is prone to a "Rawlsian compromise": something that works out well for 51% of people and poorly for the other 49%. This still isn't so bad if things are changing now and then. But we've been stuck with Clintonist "preachy" Democrats and Gingrichite "edgy" Republicans for nearly my whole life.
1123581321 4y ago
The solid red and blue states influence what kinds of candidates can make it to the general election at all. California and the other large, blue states also have significant influence in Washington between elections.
dantheman 4y ago
The federal government does far too many things, and that's really the problem. The constitution spelled out what the government was allowed to do and that limitation died in the progressive era.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Can you provide an example of something the federal government is doing that should be up to the states?
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  Yes well the progressive era was truly terrible. Food safety, environmental protection, monopolies etc. are really not something the Federal government should have any right to intervene in. After all the states had no issues handling all the before.. obviously…
  - desertrider12 4y ago
    A lot of good things happened (could add womens suffrage too) but there was also supreme court endorsement of eugenics (Buck v Bell 1927). Then Woodrow Wilson’s Espionage Act during WW1. In Schenck v US and Debs v US, the supreme court upheld convictions (first for the crime of distributing literature arguing the draft was illegal, and second just for hinting that the US shouldnt have joined the war).
    - yywwbbn 4y ago
      Well Wilson wasn’t a progressive. But yeah allowing the Federal government to have more power is definitely a double-edged sword
cafeface 4y ago
You might be interested to learn about Washington, DC, a region which is literally disenfranchised despite having more residents than two states. Residents can vote for president but have no voting representation in the House or Senate.

terr-dav 4y ago

This is true for the vast majority of states, and the vast majority of people's interests. The political systems in this country have been shaped by -- and frankly, designed by -- by wealthy interests to make the US an oligarchy with various performances of democratic representation.

yywwbbn 4y ago
I’m not sure that’s the reason why it’s only worth campaigning in Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona and some other states during presidential elections. Also it is the system that was designed over 100-200 years ago. The problem is the lack of meaningful reform because the people in power are there only because of the current system. That’s the reason why is it so hard to change electoral system without some external/internal shock. And “unfortunately” US has been way too stable politically during the 20th century compared to most other countries.

cpurdy 4y ago

California has already passed the National Popular Vote bill. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation Republican controlled states don't want people's votes to count, so none of them have passed the bill.

starkd 4y ago
Not the point of this thread. Popular vote has nothing to do with how responsive or attentive a government is to voter's interests. You vote for a candidate as a whole, but there are likely still issues you disagree with. Voters' interests are largely unaddressed or ignored altogether.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  It is completely the point of 'voters in specific states are largely disenfranchised during presidential elections'.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Not the point of this thread. Popular vote has nothing to do with how responsive or attentive a government is to voter's interests Actually, it does: more specifically, degree of proportionality does, and antimajoritarianism (systems in which an absolute majority-preferred option can lose to a minority option) are an extreme case of nonproportionality. Having a powerful central executive elected by nonmajoritarian election itself weights the government to nonresponsiveness (though the US has many other factors reinforcing that.)
yellowapple 4y ago
In other words: California has promised to disenfranchise its own voters even more than is already the case. I can already see this backfiring spectacularly with a solidly-blue state like California being on the hook to put its electors toward a Republican popular vote winner.
- cpurdy 4y ago
  That's a weird way to look at it. The many states that have agreed to this (have passed the bill) have simply accepted that the votes of the people is worth more than the feelings of the billionaires who have sponsored the Republican gerrymandering movement. Right now, effectively, the land votes, and the people's vote is often ignored. Wisconsin is a good example, where the Republicans keep losing the vote, but yet with less than 50% of the vote, they somehow have a super-majority in the legislature.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    It's not weird when it reflects the reality of the situation. It's the same reason we say voting third party is throwing your vote away. It's important to have more voices heard but in our first past the post system, voting for a candidate who can't get anywhere close to a third of the votes simply doesn't matter. I haven't read the bill but if certain states are committing themselves to popular distribution of their electoral votes while the red states stick to all or nothing, the reality is that 40% of CA's electoral votes go red and blue candidates don't have a chance at winning.
    - thalassophobia 4y ago
      If I'm not mistaken, the bill only goes in effect when the states that have signed it start making up the majority of the electoral college.
    - matthewdgreen 4y ago
      The bill only applies when states representing 270 electoral votes adopt it. Since 270 votes determine the winner of the EC, it doesn’t matter at all what the remaining states do. The states that sign on would be required to put their votes towards whichever candidate wins the nationwide popular vote, effectively ending the electoral college in all but name. There’s not really much to criticize here if you believe that electing presidents by popular vote is a good idea.

gruez 4y ago

>Yes, as a Californian you can vote, but your vote is near guaranteed to have no effect, and as a result, neither of the sides cares to address your interests, solicit your opinion, advertise for your vote. Isn't that partly their fault? If you're always going to vote for one party regardless of what they or the other party does, of course neither party is going to bother catering to you. It's kind of like declaring that you will always buy apple products, then complaining that apple doesn't address your grievances.

bigfudge 4y ago
That doesn’t follow. A similar proportion of electors in swing and non swing states could have fixed voting patterns. The only difference in California is that the proportion of fixed electors for each party is further from 50%. That is, it might be the case that only 10% of electors in any state are ever prepared to change their mind, but the ones in Ohio get more say than the ones in Cali.
- joenot443 4y ago
  I think it makes perfect sense. Presumably, if one made the declaration (as many have) that for the rest of their life they’ll always and only vote Democrat, it wouldn’t be in the party’s best interest to cater to that voter’s preference, since that vote is already secured. Much better politics to focus their campaigning and policies on the more marginal voters who are undecided or may not vote at all. I’ve heard Americans lament about this exact concept and coming from Canada I don’t know what the solution. Sometimes I think Ross Perot was the country’s last shot at anything but the present status quo.

thereddaikon 4y ago

They aren't disenfranchised. Everyone knows which way California will go so they don't spend a lot of time campaigning there. Candidates have a limited amount of time and money. So they focus on the swing states. My state also votes pretty consistently and therefore doesn't get much campaigning. I don't feel like I am disenfranchised for it. And for everyone who is crying about the popular vote, there is a very good reason we don't do that. It was recognized from the start that if you do a strict popular vote. the more populous and wealthy areas would always call the shots and would dictate politics to the rest of the nation. At the time that meant Virginia. But it doesn't really matter who, the principle still holds. This was a compromise between populous areas and rural areas in order to get the union formed. If you switch to a pure popular vote then the nation would be run by a handful of mega cities like NYC, LA etc. That's not democracy. The system we have prevents that while still allowing for populous areas to matter. Getting rid of the electoral college would remove one of the main compromises our federal system is built on and in my opinion would be fair grounds for any state to secede. It would be comparable to throwing away parts of the Bill of Rights.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
I’ve heard this take before and it makes no sense to me. Areas don’t dictate anything. It’s people. Why should it matter where the people live? As it stands, people who live in smaller states have more say in national politics than people who live in bigger states.
- masklinn 4y ago
  > As it stands, people who live in smaller states have more say in national politics than people who live in bigger states. Not for presidential elections, nobody cares about Delaware or Wyoming's 3 electors. Small-population states matter for the Senate where they're way over-represented. Not that they're not over-represented for the EC mind, but e.g. for their 0.2% of the national population Wyoming has 0.55% of the Electoral College, versus 2% of the Senate. By comparison California's 11.75% of the national population gives them 10% of the EC and... 2% of the Senate. States which have a say (or are heard really) during presidential elections are states with large enough populations (and thus EC) that it's worth spending time and dumping money there for campaigns, yet purple enough that there's a chance to swing them.

masklinn 4y ago

> Without commenting on the other issues, but something that struck me as very odd living in the USA, was how people in California appeared fully disenfranchised during presidential elections. That's the case of every state which is away enough from swing. Only "purple" states[0] matter during presidential elections. Then again, swing states only get pandered to for a few months every 4 years. [0] and Maine and Nebraska which use district voting, but at 4 and 5 electors they're to small to really matter

thewebcount 4y ago

This is the exact opposite of my experience. It's the only place where my elected officials were actually engaged. I received regular updates from my representatives without even asking for them. They just mailed all of their constituents flyers explaining the current issues and how it affects the community. I've lived in 5 different states and never saw anything like this in any of them except California. Go figure.

hollerith 4y ago
You missed the word "presidential".
inetknght 4y ago
> I've lived in 5 different states and never saw anything like this in any of them except California. I live in Texas, around Houston. Here we certainly do have representatives (but not members of the Senate) who send mail to constituents with information. Our Senators send emails once in a while, if you sign up for them. But good luck ever figuring out the real information from the spam and ~~malicious dis~~incorrect information and opinions.

scythe 4y ago

That's true recently. But only recently have political alignments been so rigid and predictable in the United States. California went for the Republicans from 1968–92, and before that was somewhat swingy. More generally, any single-winner election system is prone to a "Rawlsian compromise": something that works out well for 51% of people and poorly for the other 49%. This still isn't so bad if things are changing now and then. But we've been stuck with Clintonist "preachy" Democrats and Gingrichite "edgy" Republicans for nearly my whole life.

1123581321 4y ago

The solid red and blue states influence what kinds of candidates can make it to the general election at all. California and the other large, blue states also have significant influence in Washington between elections.

dantheman 4y ago

The federal government does far too many things, and that's really the problem. The constitution spelled out what the government was allowed to do and that limitation died in the progressive era.

themitigating 4y ago
Can you provide an example of something the federal government is doing that should be up to the states?
yywwbbn 4y ago
Yes well the progressive era was truly terrible. Food safety, environmental protection, monopolies etc. are really not something the Federal government should have any right to intervene in. After all the states had no issues handling all the before.. obviously…
- desertrider12 4y ago
  A lot of good things happened (could add womens suffrage too) but there was also supreme court endorsement of eugenics (Buck v Bell 1927). Then Woodrow Wilson’s Espionage Act during WW1. In Schenck v US and Debs v US, the supreme court upheld convictions (first for the crime of distributing literature arguing the draft was illegal, and second just for hinting that the US shouldnt have joined the war).
  - yywwbbn 4y ago
    Well Wilson wasn’t a progressive. But yeah allowing the Federal government to have more power is definitely a double-edged sword

cafeface 4y ago

You might be interested to learn about Washington, DC, a region which is literally disenfranchised despite having more residents than two states. Residents can vote for president but have no voting representation in the House or Senate.