Reaching means addressing their issues. Addressing one person issues will probably conflict with other person issues. Wich mean that a choose have to be made on to who represent.
Some people are easier to address than other. Some people are more exigent to their representatives than others. Making it not wort it trying to address them.
It’s important to mention that just by “mentioning” people in your campaign those people are not going to vote you. You need to do specific politics that solve the problems they may have. Which is not easy and most of the times it opposes what other people want you to do.
There is actually some evidence that musk was unfortunately successful at reaching some of these people. There was a lot of talk about “strange” ballots that only voted for Trump and nothing else, usually called “bullet ballots.” Well apparently part of musks outreach plan was getting to low propensity voters and telling them “don’t worry if it’s confusing, don’t worry about knowing the candidates, the only thing we need is a vote for Trump and he’ll fix everything.”
It seems like it worked out for them… :(
The bullet ballots were such a statistical anomaly. They should have been investigated/double checked.
Why do polticalitcians cling to the idea that these voters can’t be reached?
They don’t. At least not the politicians who tend to do well. Reaching people who had never voted in any previous election was the central strategy to both Obama’s and Trump’s campaigns, and those were the two most successful electoral politicians in national American politics of the past 2 decades.
They do. That’s why voter suppression is such a big factor in every election.
Because one party doesn’t want them to vote and voter supression campaigns have become extremely powerful. And it goes beyond the beurocratic tactics like voter IDs. Apathy, cynicism, and distrust are also part of the right-wing propaganda. Opposition parties fight an uphill battle to engage more voters.
/thread
Polticalitcians?
Polt-i-cal-it-cians.
Most non-voters don’t hold significantly different beliefs than the voting population. In non-competitive states, it means motivating them to vote is unlikely to tip the scales. Why bother tipping the results from 60% to 55% by spending millions on it? Better to allocate those funds to a 53% to 48% potential flip.
In battleground states they do try to reach these people.
I don’t think that your assumptions are true. Non-voters tend to be more progressive than voters, because conservatives vote religiously out of a sense of duty and responsibility, and progressives vote when they feel like it.
This is a lever that moves in two directions. Voter suppression is a very real thing that happens in every American election. It’s practiced by conservative candidates for exactly the asymmetry I mention above.
maybe they just consider those people successfully suppressed
less people voting helps conservatives, thats why they use disenfranchisement, voter suppression and gerrymandering in the states, plus the all the propaganda “your vote doesnt matter” is drilled into peoples heads.
voter suppression is designed to discourage voting as well.
deleted by creator
But voting should be secret and confidential. Plus, how do you ensure someone isn’t voting on someone else’s behalf?
If you make less than $11,600 in 2024 you don’t file taxes because there’s no federal tax on that. So yeah, take away peoples voting rights because they’re poor. Great fucking idea, so progressive.
deleted by creator
If you worked a job that withheld taxes but you still didn’t make the minimum then you would absolutely want to still file because you would get 100% of that back and have the original amount your employer would have paid you. They can only refund you if you already gave them money.
If you’re self employed/gig work/contactor and don’t make more than the minimum you don’t need to file because you don’t have to pay tax. Assuming you didn’t have any other liability such as capital gains or sales taxes.
What do you mean “cling to the idea they can’t be reached?” A huge portion of political spending goes towards trying to increase turnout (of the people likely to vote for you).
Could make it mandatory like Australia.
Of course, many in the political space are trying to limit voting, so…
Americans would cry about mandatory voting. World’s biggest snowflakes, I’m sure if that was proposed they’d just say "ugh but the constitution, freedom and stuff, stupid libs "
In the before times when we still had the rule of law, mandatory voting would almost certainly require an amendment to the constitution or else the Supreme Court would block it. Under current precedents the government generally can’t compel political speech.
I don’t think it will ever even happen because the winning party may just always think, “Good, don’t vote; that allowed us to win more easily.”
I’m being put in a difficult situation here because I’m gonna have to go ahead and defend the American “snowflakes.” When it comes to interpreting the phrase “free elections” I think all democracies or close enough to that (which therefore includes the US) chose to say free means you’re also free not to participate. Except for the Aussies. And while I’m not an American snowflake, I’m still a snowflake because I agree with that interpretation. It wouldn’t just ruffle feathers in the US if mandatory election participation was prescribed. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Horse = voter, drink = vote. And I don’t think the Aussie governments of the last two decades have proven to be superior because they’re backed by a larger voter base. Remember the guy who ate raw onions?
Agreed. Even though I think voting is the right thing to do, forcing people to vote is an infringement on their freedom and I don’t think it’s justified.
When I think of the cost of that freedom it doesn’t seem too steep.
People want all the benefits but none of the responsibility, IMO.
I definitely see your viewpoint though.
You don’t actually have to fill out the ballot. You can tell the voting officer that you decline it, you can write profanity on it, or you can vote for your dog.
It’s a minor civic duty. Much less onerous than jury duty, lol
And you should be free to do that by not having to interact with someone
your options are shite and I refuse them all is a valid vote, why make it harder for someone to choose that than necessary?
your options are shite and I refuse them all is a valid vote, why make it harder for someone to choose that than necessary?
The only way that’s communicated is by officially declining the ballot. And I agree with the other commenter that it should be easier to do this.
By not voting, you’re communicating “They’re all fine; I can’t be assed to pick”.
why make it harder for someone to choose that than necessary?
Ironically, that’s THE main reason for people not voting.
I never miss a chance to vote and I don’t advocate for others not to vote, but I understand how some people would balk at overcoming a shitload of hurdles (including but not limited to several hours in lines surrounded by too many people, difficulties getting a valid ID etc) in order to vote for the lesser evil, which is still an evil.
If you make it easier to vote, including without having to have onerous interactions with people, mandatory voting isn’t such a hassle and neither is voluntary voting.
Personally I think mandatory voting is a bad idea. It will not make then suddenly care, they will just vote for lolrolfcopter party.
The US does a lot of bad things around voting, but it being on a workday is probably the biggest hurdle. Most other countries have it on a weekend or holiday. That means that most people can go vote and not have to chose between potentially getting fired and vote. Which, to no surprise mostly affects lower income voters.
Also combined with the witch hunt on mail in voting makes it very hard for lower income people to vote. Which is by design.
Because that group likely thinks both options are terrible and think it’s a pointless waste of time
Ultimately proven correct
Self fulfilling prophecy.
I’ll tell you why I didn’t used to vote. I worked too many hours and was emotionally exhausted all of the time. I didn’t have hobbies or interests or energy to do anything else. My personal life was a complete mess. I didn’t have friends or relationships either. I ate poorly and didn’t exercise. All I literally did was work. I suspect a lot of people were in my shoes.
The bullshit requirement for the vote to be on a Tuesday.
Vote should be on a weekend.
My state allows for mail in voting. My problem was that I was always stuck in survival mode. I couldn’t take care of my basic needs, there was no room for civic duties. It’s like I was in a trance. The problem is having to work too many hours, plus commute.
Trump: Yeah, we need more proof, come in to vote, bring two live references with an additional reference to vouge for them, all with passports, birth certificates and I need the number of the closest living relative to the doctor that delivered you.
and no lamination!
I’m a waiter, that one Saturday could be 25% of my monthly income. It should be a national holiday
It should be national election week, not election day
As others have said, this seems like an ill-formed question. Do you have reason to believe that politicians “cling to the idea that these voters can’t be reached”?
Because that would require a lot of work, and 99.99% of politicians are in it for the power and money. Not to actually help their constituents.
I guess that’s fair and they know they’re never going to be able on the promised they make so those voters will only become entrenched and disaffected.
