>I strongly disagree with anyone who denies that the trade-off exists.
Well of course the trade-off exists. I never said it doesn't take effort to go out and caucus. It does. Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big.
So you aren't making any profound argument. What you're missing is the other side of the equation - it isn't just about the relative effort to do something, but more importantly the level of care that people have for that something. That is if people don't care about attending a political rally, they won't attend a political rally even if you remove every barrier you perceive there to be. We see it in elections all the time. For all the talk about structural barriers to voting, black turn out was a record high for Obama because black communities really cared about voting for Obama. Black turnout was not as high for Hillary, because she didn't have the same level of support from the black population.
When people care about something, they will find a way to engage.
> Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big.
I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote earlier, because this response still doesn't address my actual concern:
I actually don't mind the additional barrier that caucuses create that deter the people that don't care that much. If two people are equally able to attend a caucus, and the activation energy of the caucus filters out the one that doesn't care that much, that seems good to me.
But I really very much do mind the additional barrier that caucuses create for the people that are not able to attend them due to their circumstances. If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem.
---
To reiterate my point: I am genuinely unconcerned even slightly about those you address in this post. My concern is still entirely unaddressed, except for being dismissed as not a problem or shifted to the alternate concern about people who can attend but choose not to.
>If two people care equally, but one doesn't attend because they would lose their job or need to earn enough money for dinner—then I have a massive problem.
Urgh. This is the same creative writing exercise that another poster here is engaging in. I'll tell you the same thing, I told him. You don't know that person. You don't know if that person exists. You don't know if that is actually a problem that affects even a tiny minority of would-be attendees. What you're doing is creating a caricature of working people and engaging in an imagination exercise of seeing how your caricatures would respond in hypothetical situations that don't actually exist ... because maybe you have no other connection to those working people? I don't know.
I don't know how to argue that. You created a scenario that doesn't exist. The best I can do is just say that you did that.
Anyway, I'm not going to debate whether such a person exists. If you think there exists no such person, we're not going to productively carry the conversation forward.
If you think there exists such people, but it's a small enough set that the merits of a caucus outweigh the disenfranchisement of that set, we can discuss that.
But if your argument is that flat out no such person exists, then we can stop discussing it.
>Anyway, I'm not going to debate whether such a person exists.
Of course, because you made up that person. You made up the problem. Can you quantify how many people are being prevented for caucusing because they can't take a day off? What are we talking about here, apart from imaginary situations?
>If you think there exists such people, but it's a small enough set that the merits of a caucus outweigh the disenfranchisement of that set, we can discuss that.
That is the argument. It's a big country with hundreds of millions of people. Lots of things are happening all the time. I'm sure a person broke their leg and couldn't caucus, or they found out they were pregnant and were distraught, or their mother recently died, or they couldn't take a day off work, or they don't care enough. So what?! There's an election every 2 years. There are local, state, and federal elections. If you miss one caucus because of life, it's not the end of the world, life happens. Go to the next one. Besides, it's a representative democracy, a single voter isn't dictating policy. Your neighbours and like-minded voters will be pushing for policies you care about. In Democracy, it takes a long time for people to be converted to a new position, so it takes years of grassroots organizing to enact change because every person has their own ideas.
Jesus Christ, you're making it seem like it's China where nobody is able to vote. Or as if it is a crime against humanity if a life event prevents some individual from participating at some political event - to the extent where we need to reform the entire system that worked well for hundreds of years. And by the way, life will happen no matter which way you redesign voting and democracy.
Well of course the trade-off exists. I never said it doesn't take effort to go out and caucus. It does. Having said that, there are many people with the time and means to attend a caucus (as you would define it), still don't attend a political caucus. Why is that? I'll tell you: because they don't care about caucusing and therefore the trade-off for them (as minuscule as it is) is too big.
So you aren't making any profound argument. What you're missing is the other side of the equation - it isn't just about the relative effort to do something, but more importantly the level of care that people have for that something. That is if people don't care about attending a political rally, they won't attend a political rally even if you remove every barrier you perceive there to be. We see it in elections all the time. For all the talk about structural barriers to voting, black turn out was a record high for Obama because black communities really cared about voting for Obama. Black turnout was not as high for Hillary, because she didn't have the same level of support from the black population.
When people care about something, they will find a way to engage.