Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state.
Berate is a strong word to describe what I read imo. I think it was more a suggestion to put one's self in another's shoes.
If you believe for example that a caucus is not too high a burden of voting for anyone in America because credit card debt exists, I personally guarantee to you that this is due either to a lack of experience in the struggle some Americans face, or to a lack of imagination.
If you actually wanna know, it's easy - check out "Evicted" from your local library.
>Mail in voting and thousands of in person voting booths across the state.
I dread the dystopia when you sent your party affiliation on your phone and you never even have to think about pesky things like engagement, and people, and politicians, and elections as your phone will be automatically be polled at election time for your vote.
This is a democratic dystopia.
To me, this is democracy: https://youtu.be/FRtp-ooeC3Q?t=139 - yelling, cheering, jeering, people in a common space, interacting with their neighbours, fired up!
> I personally guarantee to you that this is due either to a lack of experience in the struggle some Americans face, or to a lack of imagination.
Personally guarantee eh? I can personally guarantee you don't know what you're talking about. I noticed a tendency of a certain class of people, typically who grew up in an affluent household, who are deeply uncomfortable with making any statement that doesn't infantilize people of modest means or modest upbringing. Frequently they will also lecture others who are familiar with growing up poor, or in an immigrant ghetto in an immigrant household, as somehow ... not understanding what non-affluence looks like, perhaps because they themselves don't understand it and they lack the imagination to (as you put it).
I understand what growing up as a foreign-born immigrant in working-class immigrant household looks like, and it doesn't change my conclusion. If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time. In fact, they will be happy to. Sacrificing a little for something you care about is a spiritual experience.
> If people, regardless of income, care about caucus they will make time.
This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision.
Spending a day at a caucus could mean more than "sacrificing a little." I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway? Oops, evicted and no income. Job hunting while homeless.
The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice.
Also, I disagree entirely with your premise that a caucus is what a democracy looks like. No consideration for mute or deaf constituents. No consideration for introverts. "But if they cared enough." Sure. And if people didn't do crime, there'd be no crime. The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote. We can sit on the sidelines and make pointless statements about the ethical inferiority of people that don't want to spend 8 hours screaming at eachother to get their vote registered, or, we can acknowledge reality and build our systems around it.
A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote.
>This is essentially the "people are poor because they don't care enough to be rich" argument which yes is a valid target of derision.
No it's not. Don't strawman.
> I do claim you're lacking imagination here - why haven't you considered the case of the single mom who is one missed shift away from missing rent - and by the way, if she misses a shift she just gets fired anyway?
This is a good example of why it's so frustrating to debate this. You're engaging in creative writing and storytelling. You don't know any single mom who couldn't caucus because she was afraid to be fired. You just made her up to buttress your point. Are there working single moms at caucuses - you bet there are. Caucus are also organized and run by caring activists who are sensitive to constituent's needs - do you think they don't attempt to be as accessible as they can? Is that a major issue that affects a significant portion of would-be attendees? You don't know, you just assume it is.
>Job hunting while homeless. The choice between "participating in democracy" and "having shelter" isn't an actual choice.
No kidding it isn't an actual choice, because you just made it up and put it us a false choice. Homelessness is not dominated by people looking for work and unable to find any (and for some reason not having access to various social programs) and therefore being prevented from attending a caucus meeting. Chronic, long-term homelessness is almost solely a result of drug addiction and/or mental illness.
>The reality is those people just wouldn't be represented by a vote.
More making things up. You don't know that. You have a stereotype of working people and you're using your imagination to think of all the ways your caricatures of working people may be shut out democracy. But you don't actually know if this in fact a real problem or just something you think is a real problem. And why wouldn't they be represented well by their neighbours if some specific individual had personal commitments that prevented them from attending?
I get why you're asking me to use my imagination - because you have no other connection to the people you purport to fight for.
>A good democracy is a mail in ballot at home, guaranteed access to a free and open internet, with weeks of time before it needs to be dropped in a nearby mail box, so I can sit at my desk after work with tea while I thoroughly research before I vote.
Says me, with as much earnestness as you say with your desire for a caucus. Except my method, the evidence shows, franchises more Americans. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument by the way, you can say you prefer a caucus even though it would disenfranchise some Americans. I don't know if that exactly describes a democracy though.
OK, sorry, maybe I was confused -- we're talking caucuses weren't we? I definitely agree with that for voting at large, but I always thought the whole point of a caucus was the messy political "fun" of it all. (Disclaimer, I am not American.)
Anyways thanks for the reply, I am familiar with that book and these arguments. I just don't understand why they should apply to a caucus, which is once every few years, and mostly for more politically-involved folks by definition already.
If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability (as well as the accessibility resources necessary) to participate in a caucus.
Until we can achieve that kind of safety net, though, I think it's important that ALL forms of engaging with democracy are available to ALL Americans. The political parties get away with far too much shenanigans imo.
>If it were up to me, every American would have the time and financial stability
"Time" and "financial stability" is not an absolute measure, but is relative to your level of 'care' about the issue. I don't have 'time' to visit someone I don't care about. I make time to visit someone I do. Someone of modest means who has to work many hours a week and raise kids, won't have time (or 'financial ability') to attend a political rally if they don't really care a lot about it. They WILL make the effort if they did. If they don't care about your political cause, but you go ahead and remove all the perceived barriers, they still won't care, and they will prioritize other things they care about over your political rally or caucus.
That's what you're missing here. You're under the impression that the reason why many people don't attend caucuses is that they aren't able to - that's not reality. As a counter-example, many many many people who have all the free time in the world and all the money in the world, also don't attend caucuses. Why is that?
> As a counter-example, many many many people who have all the free time in the world and all the money in the world, also don't attend caucuses. Why is that?
That the choice exists for others doesn't automatically mean it exists for all.
It should imply to you that there are reasons other than barriers that come out of your imagination that is preventing people from caucusing ... like they don't want to. They aren't interested.
Sure, I bet there are lots of people that aren't interested! Me, for example, and I'm rich as sin. I'd rather pick up trash on the side of the road with that time - and I do have ample free time.
Doesn't change the fact that there are still Americans that don't have that freedom. Though I wish we all did!
What alternative do you suggest?