This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I appreciate your honesty about not having an example for Texas. I’m pretty sure the Northeast had some of the last minute changes, but can’t remember for sure.
Re: cheating, I don’t see how improving turnout can be considered cheating at all. In my mind the ideal election has 100% (real) turnout, and encouraging that is generally good. Allocating state resources holds some risk of impropriety, but just lowering the barrier to entry should be fine.
If that benefits one party...well, I’ll cite the Litany of Tarski.
When I see people talking like this my "Goodhart's Law" detector starts going off. An election is many things besides just a numbers game. It is (1) a public ritual in which people are seen to be taking part in collective decisionmaking. (2) An actual decisionmaking process, through which the public provides answers to questions put to it. (3) Symbolic nosecounting among the different tribes; a peaceful proxy for warfare. (4) A process by which political outcomes are legitimated.
Achieving each of those goals does not necessarily require progress along the exact same axis, labeled "number of unique ballots cast."
Require, no. Benefit from, I think yes. Which of those goals is not served by higher participation?
The public ritual only benefits.
Decisionmaking depends on whether the additional voters are, well, smarter or dumber than the original ones. If your best and brightest were already voting, I don't see much benefit. There's a case where turnout consists of one benevolent philosopher-voter who is always wise. In the absence of such, I'm inclined to vaguely gesture at "wisdom of the crowds".
The sublimation of violence clearly benefits as more potential rioters are included in the safe, sane, boring process.
Giving everyone a "voice," however small, seems like a pretty well-established way to get the stamp of legitimacy. Mostly for reasons 1 and 3. The classic alternative is divine-right kingship. If we constrain our solutions to the axis where ballots are being cast, I don't see how that justification is available.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Harris county(the same one discussed here) did institute drive thru voting at close to the last minute in 2020 and may or may not have been totally within the confines of what state law allows to do so. They certainly wouldn't be to do so again. And the state did actually try to throw out a batch of Harris county ballots over the issue, which the county sued over, and won.
More options
Context Copy link
Speaking generally, but when it comes to juicing turnout selectively in areas highly likely to yield "helpful" votes, i.e. with questionably-legal drop boxes on university campuses and in extremely Democratic districts (and even at highly Democratic-aligned events) as was done in Wisconsin, it seems a lot harder to defend.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link