More political nonsense

[avevale_intelligencer]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/autographedcat/131238.html

is a wonderful post by autographedcat about how America should be. Or, really, how the world should be. Go read it now if you haven't already.

Sadly, it's just beautiful words. The reality is that the majority of Americans wanted Bush back, in spite of the war, in spite of the economy, in spite of his personal, um, idiosyncrasies. Which leads those of us who thought we knew what the outcome would be to consider the options:

1. We've been terribly wrong about George W. Bush, and all the trouble he's caused his country is just part of a Grand Plan that will all come out right in the end.

2. The election was, after all, rigged, and rigged better this time.

3. The majority who voted for him just have not been watching tv, reading newspapers, or looking around them for the past four years.

4. The majority who voted for him are indifferent to what he's done and just tick Republican all down the line because that's what their fathers did, or something.

5. The majority who voted for him don't give a damn about the ideals that Rob wrote about and just want the government to cut taxes, wage war all over the world and otherwise leave them the heck alone.

It's probably all of the above. Someone said that both parties have been caught trying to fiddle the election one way or another: in a sane world, this would disqualify them both and force a replay, or something. And I can't believe there's no virtue in the man: he must be kind to small animals, or something.

Whatever the truth is, all Rob's post does for me is emphasise the huge gulf between what some Americans aspire to, and what some others have just let us all in for.

Comments

[catalana.livejournal.com]

The reality is that the majority of Americans wanted Bush back

Umm, actually this isn't true. According to what I've read (on CNN.com), just under 60% of eligible voters cast ballots in this election. Bush got just over half of those. So, in fact, a larger percentage of eligible voters didn't vote at all than voted for either candidate. I find that more depressing than the fact that Bush won; I can respect people who voted their conscience, even if I strongly disagree with them. But to be so apathetic that you don't even vote...grr.

Anyway, just bear in mind that about 30% of eligible people voted for Bush. This does not mean that a majority of Americans wanted him back - just a majority of those who could be bothered to vote. This has been an issue for Democrats for a long time; unfortunately, their voters tend to be less committed to actually voting than Republicans. *shrug* I dunno why, but it was well-known where I grew up that if the weather was bad on election day, the Republicans would almost certainly win; too many Democrats just didn't go to the polling places.

[gnulfy.livejournal.com]

I can respect people who voted their conscience, even if I strongly disagree with them. But to be so apathetic that you don't even vote...grr.

Second try. Maybe they just can't decide what would be the lesser evil?

I know that more often than not nowadays I don't vote for a party because I believe in them, but because I believe in the others even less.
It seems to be all the same anyway. No matter which party wins it's the people who lose.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

Second try. Maybe they just can't decide what would be the lesser evil?

Yeah, I amended that when I wrote a post in my own journal. But, to be honest, I still wonder about people who can't even be bothered to vote on issues that affect their local community - see my response to keristor below. I can't dredge up enough cynicism to believe that my vote makes absolutely no difference even on local issues like whether we should build another hospital.

[gnulfy.livejournal.com]

Okay, I get your point. It's just that in Germany there's not that much voting going on on local issues ... Not combined with county or country wide elections at least. Whatever I decide for my part of Berlin won't make a difference in the end, hospitals will be closed whether I like it or not. :-(

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but it's not popssible to derive anything from those who didn't vote except that they didn't vote for some reason. Some of them are probably disillusioned with all of the parties, and don't like any of the options ("whoever you vote for, the government always wins"). Some of them undoubtedly live in 'safe' states where their vote won't make any difference at all (whichever side they are on -- I'm in the same position here in the UK, even if we have 100% turnout and every current non-voter in my area voted for the "runner-up" candidate the incumbent would still get in with well over 50% of the vote).

The probability is, however, that those who didn't vote would have been split about the same way. Professional statisticians will bet their careers on far less than a 60% sample population, well under 1% is used for most samples. So while it is not correct to say certainly that "the majority of Americans wanted Bush" that's the way to bet (and if the others didn't, they should have said so).

"In tests, 9 out of 10 cat owners who expressed a preference..."

[catalana.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I largely disagree with your reading.

I voted for President/vice-president, governor, I think some other state office (either state senator or state representative), 2 state constitution issues, and 4 county bond issues. The federal election isn't the only one out there, you know? I realize it's the one that y'all are focussed on, but it's not the only one. People who can't even bring themselves to vote about whether to fund education or disability services (or whatever) for their community really ought to think about why they are members of that community. Even if you're fed up with the federal government you ought to have some level of interest in your local community.

As for whether the split would be the same...that depends a lot on what the demographic makeup of those non-voters is. I'm on a college campus, I see a lot of college students who are too apathetic to vote. (And, no, this isn't me putting words in their mouths - this is what they say.) If it turns out that college students overwhelmingly vote one way or the other, obviously if they don't turn out it will affect the result. The only way to know for certain is by further study; we don't actually know whether that 60% is a representative sample or not since it's a self-selecting sample. (Sorry, but I teach statistical analysis in my logic classes.)

All I'm saying there is that Zander's statement isn't necessarily true. I didn't say it's necessarily false either; to know for certain would require a lot more analysis than we're likely to get at all (much less from a trustworthy non-partisan source. *grin*)

But if y'all are determined to put the worst possible spin on this, go ahead and be depressed. *shrug* I just think it's more productive to look for ways of working with what we have than to tar and feather a large percentage of a country. Call me a Pollyanna if you like.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Good point, and thank you. I'm going to shut up about this now and hope an awful lot for the next four years.

[ci5rod.livejournal.com]

3. The majority who voted for him just have not been watching tv, reading newspapers, or looking around them for the past four years.

4. The majority who voted for him are indifferent to what he's done and just tick Republican all down the line because that's what their fathers did, or something.

I think it's a combination of 4) and, bizarrely, the inverse of 3).

First, never underestimate the power of inertia. There is a ridiculously large number of people vote tribally, without any thought of issues, just putting their cross on the piece of paper (or whatever) because that's what their parents, grandparents, neighbours and cats have always done. Most of these people are impervious to any external input, and believe me I've tried. Some of them say "Well, you would say that wouldn't you?" and put their appropriately tinted glasses back on. Some of them firmly believe that their preferred party stands for things that it doesn't, and has never pretended to, and won't be told otherwise. Some of them just don't want to think. For whatever reason, you can't change their minds.

The inverted "3"s are the ones who pay attention to the news, possibly too much attention, but don't get the ramifications. These are the ones who see Bush waging his War On Terror without ever getting how cretinous the concept is, for example. They are patriotic enough not to be fazed by the casualties, but don't think to ask if a change of approach (say, asking the neighbouring British soldiers how they got on in Northern Ireland) might change that. They take in the surface events, and the opinions of their favoured "experts", but never realise quite how biased what they're getting is.

Now, most of the examples I've given have been anti-Republican ones, but that's only because they're the ones I've been checking over most recently. There are die-hard Democrats, Conservatives, Labour supporters, LibDems, Greens, and God knows who else who similarly swallow everything that comes from their party without discrimination. I'm sure even my lot have stretched the truth from time to time, and been believed. Hell, there are people who believe that every word the Sun prints is gospel truth, so anything is possible.

[demoneyes.livejournal.com]

Someone at work recounted a TV interview done with some US voters somewhere in the Bible Belt. The gist of what they said was that they'd voted for Bush because only religious people could be relied upon to make the right decisions - and that all the world's troubles were caused by atheists.

Yes, really.

I've no doubt there's also tens or even hundreds of thousands of people who voted Democrat for just as ill-informed or ill-thought-out set of reasons. (And it happens here too - I've heard people say "I'll always vote Labour because my father would turn in his grave if I didn't" - and again probably for all parties). But like it or not, that's what underlies democracy. "The worst possible form of Government - except for all the others." (Churchill - I think)