If you spend any time reading politics on the internet, you’re bound to come across demonstrations of stupidity so breathtaking in their magnitude that you lose hope for humanity. The sad realization is that these people can and do vote just as you do, and their votes count as much as yours. How are we to hold any hope for reversing this relentless statist march off the cliff if we are beset upon all sides by the arrogantly ignorant, the stupidly partisan and the just plain dumb?
Common responses to statements that are more wrong than could possibly be imagined are expressions of ridicule or disbelief, or efforts at rebuttal. Yet we must certainly recognize that there are depths beyond reach in some cases, and that the old adage about arguing on the internet didn’t arise in a vacuum. What then, to do about such people? The simple answer is – nothing.
Do not, however, sink into dismay. There are certain realities of our society and our political system that should hearten you, at least a little. Take a walk down memory lane to the 1984 presidential election. Ronald Reagan ran for re-election against Walter Mondale. Reagan shellacked Mondale, winning 58.8% of the popular vote and carrying 49 of 50 states. Look back a bit further, to 1964, when LBJ racked up 61.1% of the popular vote and pulled 44 states against Goldwater. Now, roll back to 1936, the height of the Depression. FDR trounced Alf Langdon (who?) with 60.8% of the popular vote and 48 states. These are the most lopsided victories since the modern two party system came into being. Runaway victories, all.
Yet, despite the landslide nature of those victories, the other party still received 40% of the popular vote. It seems a common phenomenon in our society for people, families, peer groups, et al to preemptively declare themselves as “Democrats” or “Republicans” and vote reflexively for their home team, and these election results support that theory. We might conclude from these results that 80% of voters vote “their” party, meaning that 20% of voters represent actual swing votes.
Consider now the common election tactic known as “get out the vote,” where parties send organizers, drivers, cheerleaders and the like to communities known to skew heavily for one party. This tactic offers us some additional information about our 60/40 split i.e. that it’s likely safe to assume that in landslide elections, the party-line voters on the winning side turned out more than party-line voters on the losing side. From this we can infer that the actual fraction of swing voters is less than 20%. Given that there are decades between our extreme data points and that most elections have margins of 10% or less, we may conclude that there are some equilibrating market forces at work here – the parties adjust in response to losses.
On to the next piece of our puzzle – the reality of “red” states and “blue” states. In the context of national elections, it is a simple truth that voters in some states are utterly irrelevant. Yes, our landslide victors pulled almost every state in the union, but that wasn’t necessary for them to win. The parties know that many states in the northeast and on the west coast aren’t worth putting heavy effort into because, given our winner-take-all system, they’re locks to go for the Democrats. Same is true for a list of states in the middle of the country and the south on the Republican side. Once we remove the deep red and deep blue states, the number of relevant swing voters decreases substantially.
There’s the point – that noodle brain whose idiotic pronouncements left you slack jawed is very likely an irrelevant voter. You don’t need to worry about him, you don’t need to knock him down, you don’t need to counterattack, you don’t need to invest energy in him. Given that (less than) one in ten voters are relevant to election outcomes, and adding in the likelihood that our vapid subject is a lockstep homer for his party, there’s little point in trying to correct him. About the only relevance is that some other readers, who may not have established beliefs and opinions on a subject yet, might not understand that noodle-head’s pap is just that (in other words, he’s put forth some stupidity that’s not obviously so to the uninformed). That worry is only relevant if the site where noodle-head is posting is one where there is some modicum of reasoned discussion and one that may be frequented by non-partisans. If that’s the case, and if there’s anything substantial enough in noodle-heads’ post to warrant correction (in other words, if he’s not just flame throwing), then offer a correction, calmly, rationally, and in a form directed at third parties (although a hint of scorn isn’t out of bounds). Then forget about the noodle-head. He doesn’t matter.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters