Thread: The Middle Class: boo and hiss?

The median voter has very little impact on policy.

Gerrymandering has assured most political parties maintain their seat, no matter what the voter does. That is why we have red states and blue states. Bush was unpopular, McCain equally so. Obama was an unknown, hyped by the media, with many Independants, and even some Republicans, voting in his favor, yet 22 states voted for McCain.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/re...ident/map.html

The only the way the voter has any impact is when they have power to change things, that requires:

1. The 80/20 districts are redrawn to 50/50.
2. It requires re-writing campaign contribution law, so special interests don't overwhelm the voter with political ads.
3. It requires separating special interests from the media, so they go back to being the watch dog that tracks campaign promises to to results, and follow up on the results of policy, not it's intent.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

The median voter has very little impact on policy.

That's terribly naive. We even see trade policy impacted by the median voter (e.g. we'd expect less protectionism in a country with a more aged population)

Originally Posted by Not Amused

The median voter has very little impact on policy.

WHAT? Do you not know what median means? That you're going to try and sit here and say that the average voter has "very little" impact on policy is just remarkable, and no in the good way.

Gerrymandering has assured most political parties maintain their seat, no matter what the voter does.

US House districts are perhaps the most manipulated and yet, they have extremely high turn over rates compared to senators, this assertion is clearly not based in reality.

That is why we have red states and blue states. Bush was unpopular, McCain equally so. Obama was an unknown, hyped by the media, with many Independants, and even some Republicans, voting in his favor, yet 22 states voted for McCain.

HUH???? So now your saying the way state lines are drawn is gerrymandering? That's a stretch... .. well that's not even fair to stretches, that comment is utterly outrageous and unsupportable.

The only the way the voter has any impact is when they have power to change things

The big lie about voting is that your vote matters. It doesn't. Statistically any single vote is completely insignificant and has no affect whatsoever on the outcome and frankly virtually everyone could use their time better by just staying home and doing virtually anything else. Hence my comments earlier in this thread about rational ignorance.

Originally Posted by Anikdote

WHAT? Do you not know what median means? That you're going to try and sit here and say that the average voter has "very little" impact on policy is just remarkable, and no in the good way.

Average, or median? What percent of those polled wanted Obamacare to fail? Did that impact policy at all? Even after Nov 2010, where the voters made it clear, the Democrats pushed that legislation through.

Originally Posted by Anikdote

US House districts are perhaps the most manipulated and yet, they have extremely high turn over rates compared to senators, this assertion is clearly not based in reality.

High turn over rate? Even with the venom toward the Republicans in 2008, 21 seats changed hands, out of 435, 5%, and the Democrats in 2010, 63 lost seat, 14.5%.

Originally Posted by Anikdote

HUH???? So now your saying the way state lines are drawn is gerrymandering? That's a stretch... .. well that's not even fair to stretches, that comment is utterly outrageous and unsupportable.

How many seats change hands in your state elections? In CA in 2010 - 0.

Originally Posted by Reiver

That's terribly naive. We even see trade policy impacted by the median voter (e.g. we'd expect less protectionism in a country with a more aged population)

You say it is naive, yet your supporting statement demonstrates that the voters wishes aren't part of policy.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

You say it is naive, yet your supporting statement demonstrates that the voters wishes aren't part of policy.

Again, your stance is just built on naivety. And your response to my post is nonsensical. Put that right

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Average, or median?

To save yourself embarrassment, go look up the definition of median.

High turn over rate?

Relatively, yes! But even if no, it's more a result of voter apathy and pulling the lever for your party and not the candidate.

How many seats change hands in your state elections? In CA in 2010 - 0.

So? Still doesn't support your outrageous claim.

Originally Posted by Anikdote

To save yourself embarrassment, go look up the definition of median.

Relatively, yes! But even if no, it's more a result of voter apathy and pulling the lever for your party and not the candidate.

So? Still doesn't support your outrageous claim.

Median is different than average.

14% is significant?

My claim is you are missing a signifcant reason why the voter doesn't effect policy. If you want to ignore it, thats fine.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

My claim is you are missing a signifcant reason why the voter doesn't effect policy. If you want to ignore it, thats fine.

You'd have to assume irrationality of politician. Good luck with that one

Originally Posted by Reiver

You'd have to assume irrationality of politician. Good luck with that one

Are you kidding? Politicians vote to stay in office. When the voters have little effect, politicians look to please those that do, the special interests that fund the "campaign" contributions, and the PACs that fund the ad campaigns.