Political Memes

5430 readers

1684 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

rjc@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

WrenFeathers@lemmy.world

-23

Hobson's Choice (lemmy.world)

submitted 9 months ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were going by the interpretation of the prestigious USA Today, a well known science organization, and definitely not a shitty news outlet with a vested interest in misconstruing studies if it will grab the attention of uncritical thinkers who will then arrogantly repeat these stupid ideas on the Internet.

[+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Then I refer you back to the study Noisy Retrospection: The Effect of Party Control on Policy Outcomes referenced in the prestigious USA Today.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Then I will again refer you to the very first sentence in that study. Wow, your combination of arrogance and lack of understanding is remarkable.

[+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That means, in the authors’ view, that “retrospective voting” can’t really work: If the point of voting is for voters to punish parties for making their lives worse or reward parties for making their lives better, and party control doesn’t affect their near-term lives at all, then that kind of punishment and reward is going to be largely arbitrary, not driven by real changes in well-being. Source: I am that dense

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Ah yes Vox, you are truly a scholarly researcher. The fact that you drag these things up like a cat that thinks it's a lion because it left a dead mice at the door is very entertaining.

[+] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You didn’t seem to understand the scientific study, so I gave you articles that explained it.

In the American Political Science Review (the premier journal in political science), Adam Dynes and John Holbein carefully and rigorously measure how parties affect economic, education, crime, family, social, environmental and health outcomes. They find zero difference between Republican and Democratic state governments.

You don’t have to like it, but that’s what the science says. I did find that they say votes do matter in off-years, in local elections, but that’s not what the post is about.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Are you seriously going to quote USA Today again, and just go around in circles? Are you OK? This paper does not conclude that voting doesn't matter. I'm inclined to think you're nothing other than a troll.