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 -
On the object level, I think you are wrong machines still exist. Chicago's machine even in your classic sense is about 80% intact. Regardless of patronage, that sort of political power doesn't evaporate organically. In fact, it typically accumulates. As we saw in 1982, 1/10 votes in Chicago was a fraudulent vote. I've tried looking for statistical evidence that Chicago voter turnout collapsed post 1982, but it is not evident. So roughly the same amount of "people" kept voting.
Thus, the fraud machine is durable and undetectable. Why is it so different than the highly visible patronage system you think has evaporated? Well, because instead of structure, it thrives off chaos. Go to any polling place in a poorer area of a major city. What do you see? Well, firstly you will see illegal electioneering at the entrance. So, its obvious that basic laws are not being followed. Second, when you get inside, ballots will be strewn about. Boxes will contain them, or not. The voter roll is a piece of paper with checkboxes filled out by a woman with glaucoma. Signature verification to receive your ballot is impossible to fail. Over 50% of the voters on the roll haven't voted in 3+ elections. In other words, there are nearly an unlimited array of options to infiltrate the system. One competent person at one polling place could easily produce 5000 votes with 0% chance of detection. Bang.
Just going through Chicago mayoral election results since Daley was first elected
1955: 1,290,000 votes cast Daley wins 54-45
1959 1,090,000.votes cast Daley wins 71-28
1963 1,220,000 votes cast Daley wins 55-44
1967 1,084,000 votes cast Daley wins 73-25
1971: 1,056,000 votes cast Daley wins 70-30
1975: 698,000 votes cast Daley wins 77-19
1977: special election cause Daley died: 634,000 votes cast, Bilandic (D) wins 77-21
1979: 854,000 votes cast Byrne (D) wins 82-16
The FBI finds tons of fraudulent ballots in the 1982 federal election, this could be breakpoint though I don't know exactly when reforms in response to this went into effect
1983: 1,290,000 votes cast, Washington (D) wins 51-48
1987 1,160,000 votes cast Washington (D) wins 53-42
1989 Special Election Cause Washington died: 1,040,000 votes cast, Daley Jr. (D) wins 55-41
1991: 637,000 votes cast, Daley Jr. (D) wins 71-26
1995 598,000 votes cast, Daley Jr. (D) wins 60-36
1999: 595,000 votes cast, Daley Jr. (D) wins 71-28.
You're suggesting that a ~10% decline in voter turnout would be a good indication that the machine stopped working, but that roughly the same number of people voted so it was will still working. But there was a massive surge in voting after 1982 not a collapse. Does that mean the machine faked more votes than ever, or that people who had given up started to believe elections were fair and turned out to vote.
I don't know but it just doesn't seem like raw vote totals are a good indication of whether "a machine" is in operation. The lowest total votes cast seem to coincide with the largest margins for the incumbent.
That is another plausible explanation. But it also, IMO, overly privledges the position of free and fair elections, which from my POV is what the law generally overly does, and instead I'd prefer people take election integrity much more seriously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link