Write your elected representatives, preferably by snail mail (they take it more seriously that way). With Right to Repair being talked about so much right now, the time could be right to get this into the public mind. Car Thing could be what nucleates anti bricking legislation.
Just a note, from having worked in a Congressional office that phones are usually answered by interns and a staff assistant, mail is opened almost exclusively by the staff assistant, but this is still the lowest level position in an office so the marginal difference is pretty minimal. And for any issue that's time sensitive, don't bother physically mailing because it has to go through extensive security checks before it gets delivered to us. I'd say the ideal way to maximize impact with an elected official here is to ask them the question publicly (FB, at a town hall) and try to garner as much support as you can so they feel like they have to answer you positively.
You're correct in phone calls and letters counting way more than e-mails or online comments. Especially if the comment is thoughtful. If the issue is hot button, it won't do anything. But for marginal issues like these, a couple calls can easily swing votes.
You should be choosing people who will make the right choice. Occasions when sudden change needs radically new information should be rare. If you ask me how "my" representative (MP Alan Whitehead, so arguably no longer "my representative" because there's an election next month and Parliament is dissolved) voted on an issue I didn't even know about, I can usually make a pretty good guess based on what I know about Alan.
e.g. taxes -- Alan doesn't like taxation as much as me, so "Increase tax on..." means probably that's a No from Alan. However, he does think we should soak the ultra-rich, so, while a tax on booze, cars, or even holiday homes would be a non-starter, Alan can probably get behind a plan to increase tax, say, on owning a private jet, or a new tax on billionaires.
The impact on the outcome is identical to not voting in the US. The total number of votes doesn't matter, just how many votes other candidates got.
Even voting for someone who isn't from the two major parties is effectively equivalent to not voting in the current election. At it best may communicate a preference for certain policies that the major parties take into account in the next election cycle.
That's a good idea in theory but most people have dozens of issues that are important to them and there's rarely a candidate for office who is aligned with them on everything, so they have to pick which issues are their most important. And of course their position on every possible issue isn't know when evaluating candidates. Some change their position after being elected. Sometimes issues come up that weren't really considered to be an issue at the time of the election.
I dare say we've collectively done that math/valuation very poorly. That's not a judgement. It's actively weaponized against us.
So you say a small number of key issues aren't a good indicator, right? I agree. Stop. Wargames comes to mind - don't play.
Vote, but not on things you think are important. Things that actually are important. Achievements, not tales.
Someone who has a career of making decisions that benefit the public will get my vote.
Ask no questions and you'll hear no lies. I don't want the convincing story rep, I want the one shaping our society for the better - even if it costs me.
We're somewhat poorly served by 'the system', as a peer mentions too. There's only so much we can do.
We've made a fun false dichotomy for ourselves with two parties and FPTP
That's the problem with FPTP systems. In true multi-party proportional systems, people can align with the candidate on much more than few extremely polarizing points. Also gets rid of most effect of gerrymandering.
On the other hand, later coalition building often results in significant compromises too.
Why not go even farther than that? Admit political knowledge is virtually impossible, and just stop engaging in the political process at all. Save your time and energy for something easier, like cutting edge theoretical physics or becoming a billionaire.
Such is the point argued by Dr. Mike Huemer in his essay In Praise of Passivity [1], and to this date I've never found a clearer piece of writing on the matter.
What passivity ignores is non voters get screwed over by politicians.
In California in 2022 voting by age breaks down:
29% or 900,000 18-24 year olds
43% or 1,970,000 25-34 year olds
51% or 2,132,000 35-44 year olds
56% or 4,343,000 45-54 year olds
66% or 3,699,000 65+ year olds
So it’s obvious what kinds of things to focus on. Other states get even more extreme only 14% of 18-24 year olds voted in WV.
This is very interesting data. I believe that it is generally considered common knowledge that it's very difficult to increase youth turnout so most campaigns don't even really try. But given how entrenched polarization is, increasing youth turnout in a few key states could be enough to sway the election. Of course decreasing retiree turnout is another (not mutually exclusive) approach. The nice thing about trying to increase turnout though is that it is a positive and inclusive approach rather than a negative and exclusive approach (though the implementation could still be negative: come out and vote for our guy to get rid of that other guy we don't like).
I don’t really see a problem with that. People get wiser as they get older and more mature.
This has been proven by insurance companies, who charge higher rates for younger drivers since they’re more likely to be reckless and get into an accident. Not the kind of person you would want to encourage to vote, unless you have ulterior motives to manipulate impressionable young people.
It’s easy to make the opposite argument around declining mental facilities and less education for the oldest Americans who are the most likely to vote yet have increased insurance costs despite driving less.
Whites also vote more than Hispanics, are suggesting ignoring their issues is a good thing as well?
In the end, having out groups is inherently a bad thing no matter who makes them up.
I can ramble a little about it, I don't know how much water it'll hold.
First, as an adult who is otherwise held to certain responsibilities, we've already decided "they are the kind of person we want to vote..." unless they're a felon or something.
The social contract says the people/law abiding adult citizens aren't to be subjugated. They get to defend themselves and vote. Not some of them. All.
With well-meaning attitudes like yours - applying insurance risk/pooling to rights - we manage to treat criminals too poorly. That's not hyperbole. The wider practice is so disgusting I'm announcing my choice to move on before I allow this to degrade.
Second, it's a numbers game. There's safety in the padding they provide simply by taking power away from zealots. There are more than two potential outcomes - good/bad. Shades.
Finally, how is one to learn if not by participation?
If I wanted to cede control to unelected CEOs and unaccountable corporations I'd go around telling people not to exercise the power they have to influence politics too, because I'd know damn well that powerful corporations and industry groups aren't going to "stop engaging in the political process". They'll stay very busy spending huge amounts of time and money bribing politicians, writing legislation for them, and manipulating the public's perception to further their own interests and profits at the expense of everyone else. How frustrating it must be when the serfs interfere by exercising their rights to self-govern when they should just let their corporate masters run the show instead of insisting on a government that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people"
Most Americans get some form of healthcare subsidy be that directly or through their parents. However rural hospital subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, low income subsidies on the market, or pretax from your employer are all very different and none of them really impact VA benefits.
Living on 30k/ year is meaningfully different than 50k or 500k etc. A 20 year old and a 60 year old don’t just average to a 40 year old. 0 kids is different than 1 kid which is different than 3 kids.
Sure, but let's not ignore that a certain 'class' of people make up our representatives - and it's not representative. Despite their pandering.
It's ridiculously uniform by comparison to the populace
I don't mean to overstate it; reasonable arguments can be made for, against, or as - some of that's implicit. Power/election makes a class. That's not what I'm talking about.
I was grandstanding when I got to talking about average. The class is 'crook', or hack/opportunist if we want something more modern.
To close, back to my hypothetical: the shock they feel implies that a representative person should be able to adjust.
The ones we have couldn't. They'd literally have a coronary - they manage to be several deviations off in terms of age and fitness in addition to moral sensibility.
I know every experience is different. Christ. Tree, meet forest. The problem is a lack of representative difference in the counterpart.
