How to fix/improve elections?

terp said:

relx said:
In college, I took a class on the Vietnam War taught by a very radical professor. One day, he had a few of his fellow activists address the class, and the question of voting came up. One of them said, "if voting really changed things, they wouldn't allow you to do it." That thought has stayed with me.

I always like the old saying: Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards.

Local races are decided by handfuls of votes pretty frequently. It took about four minutes to find the 7th Congressional District results for 2014, which was decided by 35 votes. Didn't Jerry Ryan win by two votes in his first TC election? Maybe it was four.

But after Bush v. Gore, I'll never again believe that it doesn't matter who gets elected, or if you vote. Counterfactuals are always subject to the authors' personal biases, but it's impossible for me to believe that 2001 to 2009 would have played out pretty much the same way as it did, if Gore had prevailed.

tom said:

ml1 said:
I'm not joking. The GOP will never go for any of this. Why should we pretend they would?

They would never go for a national healthcare program either. But we got one.
It would pay to be prepared, have legislation ready to go when circumstances are right.

and the ACA ended up in the Supreme Court, and its implementation is still being fought tooth and nail. Same would be the case with expanded access to voting. It will be fought as an invitation to "voter fraud."

one of the problems with liberals is that they think these good ideas can just be implemented as soon as they get a majority. We need to patiently make the case over time with a proper communication strategy, and persuade people that voting rights are important. Just passing a law isn't going to convince all the people who think this means a license for Democrats to "steal" elections.

terp said:
I was hoping you had data to back up your claims. There are about 180,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Registry. How many of these were based on who was in the various state houses and how?

don't think I've made a claim about the percentage of federal laws directly based on or influenced by state-level politics, just that some are. Surely the ACA is a good example, as it's a federal law strongly based on a MA law, and the MA law was strongly influenced by who was in the MA statehouse? Are you looking for the legislative history in Mass? Studies on how voter turnout and electorate composition led to the MA law? If you're sincerely interested in the data, I'm happy to help you try to find it.

So you have some shaky anecdotal evidence, but you believe that

a lot of policy, including national policy, is based on, influenced, or affected by who controls the state houses and governorships.

What is "a lot"?

terp said:
So you have some shaky anecdotal evidence, but you believe that

a lot of policy, including national policy, is based on, influenced, or affected by who controls the state houses and governorships.

What is "a lot"?

I can sum it up in one word: redistricting.

ml1 said:

tom said:

ml1 said:
I'm not joking. The GOP will never go for any of this. Why should we pretend they would?

They would never go for a national healthcare program either. But we got one.
It would pay to be prepared, have legislation ready to go when circumstances are right.

and the ACA ended up in the Supreme Court, and its implementation is still being fought tooth and nail. Same would be the case with expanded access to voting. It will be fought as an invitation to "voter fraud."
one of the problems with liberals is that they think these good ideas can just be implemented as soon as they get a majority. We need to patiently make the case over time with a proper communication strategy, and persuade people that voting rights are important. Just passing a law isn't going to convince all the people who think this means a license for Democrats to "steal" elections.

Don't forget that the Dems were patiently making the case over time on healthcare since the Truman administration.

And of course the Republicans would never go for it -- right now. But you seem to be arguing against even beginning the process of persuading people. Maybe you just worded it that way and I'm misunderstanding your meaning.

tom said:

ml1 said:

tom said:

ml1 said:
I'm not joking. The GOP will never go for any of this. Why should we pretend they would?

They would never go for a national healthcare program either. But we got one.
It would pay to be prepared, have legislation ready to go when circumstances are right.

and the ACA ended up in the Supreme Court, and its implementation is still being fought tooth and nail. Same would be the case with expanded access to voting. It will be fought as an invitation to "voter fraud."
one of the problems with liberals is that they think these good ideas can just be implemented as soon as they get a majority. We need to patiently make the case over time with a proper communication strategy, and persuade people that voting rights are important. Just passing a law isn't going to convince all the people who think this means a license for Democrats to "steal" elections.

Don't forget that the Dems were patiently making the case over time on healthcare since the Truman administration.
And of course the Republicans would never go for it -- right now. But you seem to be arguing against even beginning the process of persuading people. Maybe you just worded it that way and I'm misunderstanding your meaning.

I'm not arguing against it. I'm just suggesting that it's naive to ask people to brainstorm ideas like weekend voting or mail voting without acknowledging that the GOP will fight a pitched battle against it. Or acknowledging that millions of Americans already believe that "voter fraud" is a far bigger problem than barriers to voting.

imho, it's fairly typical of liberals to see what they think is a problem, and assume everyone else thinks as they do and see the same problem. it's why we don't get things done. Part of the brainstorm should include "how do we persuade the majority of people that this is important to a well-functioning society?" And it frustrates me that I bring these issues up, and basically everyone ignores it as if I'm from another planet. But fighting GOP BS on this issue is (again imho) more important than the actual ideas for making voting easier.

terp said:
So you have some shaky anecdotal evidence, but you believe that

a lot of policy, including national policy, is based on, influenced, or affected by who controls the state houses and governorships.

What is "a lot"?

That's fair - "a lot" is pretty loose. How about "significant" or "important?" The ACA I think qualifies as both significant and important federal legislation based on state action. Another example would be environmental policy, where California specifically has often had a significant impact.

So, the improved claim would be "significant national policies have been based on, influenced, or affected by who controls state houses and governorships."

PVW said:

terp said:
So you have some shaky anecdotal evidence, but you believe that

a lot of policy, including national policy, is based on, influenced, or affected by who controls the state houses and governorships.

What is "a lot"?

That's fair - "a lot" is pretty loose. How about "significant" or "important?" The ACA I think qualifies as both significant and important federal legislation based on state action. Another example would be environmental policy, where California specifically has often had a significant impact.
So, the improved claim would be "significant national policies have been based on, influenced, or affected by who controls state houses and governorships."

So, this is something you feel to be true, but don't have any data to back it up. Is that right? Where is the data? Do you always make sweeping claims like this regarding topics you appear to know little about?

Part of the brainstorm should include "how do we persuade the majority of people that this is important to a well-functioning society?" And it frustrates me that I bring these issues up, and basically everyone ignores it as if I'm from another planet. But fighting GOP BS on this issue is (again imho) more important than the actual ideas for making voting easier.

Fair enough. Though part of the BS-fighting is going to involve moving the "Overton window," and both sides of the argument (here's why we're right, here's why they're full of it) are important.

terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:
So you have some shaky anecdotal evidence, but you believe that

a lot of policy, including national policy, is based on, influenced, or affected by who controls the state houses and governorships.

What is "a lot"?

That's fair - "a lot" is pretty loose. How about "significant" or "important?" The ACA I think qualifies as both significant and important federal legislation based on state action. Another example would be environmental policy, where California specifically has often had a significant impact.
So, the improved claim would be "significant national policies have been based on, influenced, or affected by who controls state houses and governorships."

So, this is something you feel to be true, but don't have any data to back it up. Is that right? Where is the data? Do you always make sweeping claims like this regarding topics you appear to know little about?

I don't think this is going to be a data-driven proof, but more a case-by-case study.

California auto emissions standards. Texas' textbook reviews. South Dakota's usury laws. Delaware's incorporation process. Just a few examples.

Plus, the use of gerrymandering to leverage an electoral minority into a decade-long legislative majority. Only by controlling the statehouses can you successfully gerrymander the federal legislature. And once you have that you've got a lot of control over the national policies. It seems like a logical flow of cause and effect.

Huh. I thought the bar was higher around these parts. PVW usually likes to see peer review studies with copious amounts of data prior to forming an opinion. I thought that was his(her?) position. Maybe that's only for positions PVW doesn't agree with. That may be part of my confusion.

Just so I understand, the proposal is to have compulsory voting, the addition of a national holiday, and some other actions, with no data to back it up. These are essentially faith based proposals then?

terp said:
Huh. I thought the bar was higher around these parts. PVW usually likes to see peer review studies with copious amounts of data prior to forming an opinion. I thought that was his(her?) position. Maybe that's only for positions PVW doesn't agree with. That may be part of my confusion.
Just so I understand, the proposal is to have compulsory voting, the addition of a national holiday, and some other actions, with no data to back it up. These are essentially faith based proposals then?

That's not what I understand the point to be. PVW thinks those are good ideas -- what kind of data do you require to prove positively that he in fact does?

I thought we were talking about state influence on Federal policy. That's where he's making an objective claim, and he (and I) have given some specific examples.

It's not the kind of data I require that's important. What's important is that PVW likes to see data to

back these things up. After all....

We can bring data to bear, and yes there are pitfalls to watch out for in making sure we're dong so reliably, but there are also techniques available to minimize those pitfalls. You seem very dismissive of this, and instead offer - what - the fact that you believe something to be true, so it must be true?

How are you any different from a Marxist, or a Creationist, or any other faith-based ideologue that makes claims for how the world ought to be but, when pressed to back it up, puffs and huffs and make a b big to-do, but ultimately can't offer any compelling evidence? You think the fact that you can offer observations on where our current system falls short means your prescriptions therefore follow? Karl Marx had some pretty keen insights too, but I certainly wouldn't call his proposed "solutions" a rousing success. You think you can do better why, exactly?

I mean we can't site a peer-reviewed political science paper? How about some charts. Like maybe four? That perhaps might fit the bill. Who knows? Maybe we need a peer reviewed study to determine what might convince the opposition? Hard to tell.

Your position, for instance, has as one of its foundational assumptions that state and local policy drives national policy. What if that's not true much of the time? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- a lot of social scientists spend a lot of time researching that sort of question. You act as if it has an obvious answer, yet it's actually a large, unproven, and possibly unprovable assumption.

And all I get is some half baked anecdotes? I'm not sure why you guys are so hostile against science.

PVW said:

- The electoral college is based on electoral districts drawn by the states. When drawn for partisan advantage, this affects who gets elected to the federal government, hence control of state houses affects and influences the shapers of national policies

I don't think this is correct, in almost every case.

The number of electors that a state has is their number of congresspeople + 2 for the senators. The districting in the state does not matter because almost every state awards all of its electoral votes to whoever won the state's popular vote.

The only exception to this would be if a state decided to award some of its electoral votes by congressional district. I think that Maine does this, and Nebraska may still do this. In that case a gerrymandered map might have an effect on how a state's electoral votes were awarded.

You're right, I misspoke/was sloppy. What I meant was gerrymandering of congressional districts, but I for some reason had the electoral college in mind when I wrote this. Though, I will note that some states have been proposing to move to the by-district method. Wasn't what I had in mind when I wrote this, though - I simply miswrote!

gerardryan said:

PVW said:

- The electoral college is based on electoral districts drawn by the states. When drawn for partisan advantage, this affects who gets elected to the federal government, hence control of state houses affects and influences the shapers of national policies

I don't think this is correct, in almost every case.
The number of electors that a state has is their number of congresspeople + 2 for the senators. The districting in the state does not matter because almost every state awards all of its electoral votes to whoever won the state's popular vote.
The only exception to this would be if a state decided to award some of its electoral votes by congressional district. I think that Maine does this, and Nebraska may still do this. In that case a gerrymandered map might have an effect on how a state's electoral votes were awarded.

terp said:
It's not the kind of data I require that's important. What's important is that PVW likes to see data to


back these things up. After all....

We can bring data to bear, and yes there are pitfalls to watch out for in making sure we're dong so reliably, but there are also techniques available to minimize those pitfalls. You seem very dismissive of this, and instead offer - what - the fact that you believe something to be true, so it must be true?

How are you any different from a Marxist, or a Creationist, or any other faith-based ideologue that makes claims for how the world ought to be but, when pressed to back it up, puffs and huffs and make a b big to-do, but ultimately can't offer any compelling evidence? You think the fact that you can offer observations on where our current system falls short means your prescriptions therefore follow? Karl Marx had some pretty keen insights too, but I certainly wouldn't call his proposed "solutions" a rousing success. You think you can do better why, exactly?

I mean we can't site a peer-reviewed political science paper? How about some charts. Like maybe four? That perhaps might fit the bill. Who knows? Maybe we need a peer reviewed study to determine what might convince the opposition? Hard to tell.
Your position, for instance, has as one of its foundational assumptions that state and local policy drives national policy. What if that's not true much of the time? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- a lot of social scientists spend a lot of time researching that sort of question. You act as if it has an obvious answer, yet it's actually a large, unproven, and possibly unprovable assumption.

And all I get is some half baked anecdotes? I'm not sure why you guys are so hostile against science.

Well, on the specific claims I've made, I've offered to find some data so we can discuss more. You asked about my claim that significant federal legislation has been based on state legislation (which I originally wrote as "a lot of federal policy," which you correctly noted was too broad of a claim).

Now maybe you don't think the ACA counts as significant legislation, which is fine. If you don't, then the it doesn't work as an example of a state law that significantly influenced a national law, so I haven't backed up my claim. Different people might define "significant" differently. I think the lower bounds of what counts as "significant" is especially hard to define. I would be curious, though, where you draw the line for what counts as "significant" if the ACA doesn't?

Also, did I say "state and local policy drives national policy"? If I did, I think that's too strong -- I think "influences" is better supported than "drives" (so if I misspoke here, thanks again for helping me scope down my claim to a more supportable one!).

On that point, though, I did want to elaborate some more. I think (and this is an opinion, not a fact claim) that we (or at least myself and people I read) are overly biased toward focusing on national politics. I started this thread at the end of an election day that was all local races, where turnout was very low. I do think increasing turnout has benefits for national politics, but it's biggest impact is local, and that this would be a worthwhile goal. Put another way, even if I'm completely wrong, and state politics has no significant effects on national ones, I think it's still valuable to increase turnout on elections for local races.

What I'm mostly concerned with here is the question of democratic legitimacy. A lot of people seem to have very low opinions of our political system. You've argued for a less centralized government (among other things), and while I still don't see any evidence that this would mean a less corrupt or less violent government, I will note that a lot of the governance that most directly affects people happens at the local level, yet citizen engagement here is very low. Would increased engagement (on this thread I've focused specifically on voting) increase people's sense of the legitimacy of government? That's in part something we can study, and yes, I'll see if I can find some relevant studies on this to share.

But, from your perspective as a harsh critic of our political system, I also would be curious as to your thoughts on citizen engagement and local government. Is it a problem that so few people vote for local races, even apart from any national implications?

Force people to vote! Fine them if they don't. It works.

PVW said:

terp said:
It's not the kind of data I require that's important. What's important is that PVW likes to see data to


back these things up. After all....

We can bring data to bear, and yes there are pitfalls to watch out for in making sure we're dong so reliably, but there are also techniques available to minimize those pitfalls. You seem very dismissive of this, and instead offer - what - the fact that you believe something to be true, so it must be true?

How are you any different from a Marxist, or a Creationist, or any other faith-based ideologue that makes claims for how the world ought to be but, when pressed to back it up, puffs and huffs and make a b big to-do, but ultimately can't offer any compelling evidence? You think the fact that you can offer observations on where our current system falls short means your prescriptions therefore follow? Karl Marx had some pretty keen insights too, but I certainly wouldn't call his proposed "solutions" a rousing success. You think you can do better why, exactly?

I mean we can't site a peer-reviewed political science paper? How about some charts. Like maybe four? That perhaps might fit the bill. Who knows? Maybe we need a peer reviewed study to determine what might convince the opposition? Hard to tell.
Your position, for instance, has as one of its foundational assumptions that state and local policy drives national policy. What if that's not true much of the time? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- a lot of social scientists spend a lot of time researching that sort of question. You act as if it has an obvious answer, yet it's actually a large, unproven, and possibly unprovable assumption.

And all I get is some half baked anecdotes? I'm not sure why you guys are so hostile against science.

Well, on the specific claims I've made, I've offered to find some data so we can discuss more. You asked about my claim that significant federal legislation has been based on state legislation (which I originally wrote as "a lot of federal policy," which you correctly noted was too broad of a claim).

Now maybe you don't think the ACA counts as significant legislation, which is fine. If you don't, then the it doesn't work as an example of a state law that significantly influenced a national law, so I haven't backed up my claim. Different people might define "significant" differently. I think the lower bounds of what counts as "significant" is especially hard to define. I would be curious, though, where you draw the line for what counts as "significant" if the ACA doesn't?

Also, did I say "state and local policy drives national policy"? If I did, I think that's too strong -- I think "influences" is better supported than "drives" (so if I misspoke here, thanks again for helping me scope down my claim to a more supportable one!).
On that point, though, I did want to elaborate some more. I think (and this is an opinion, not a fact claim) that we (or at least myself and people I read) are overly biased toward focusing on national politics. I started this thread at the end of an election day that was all local races, where turnout was very low. I do think increasing turnout has benefits for national politics, but it's biggest impact is local, and that this would be a worthwhile goal. Put another way, even if I'm completely wrong, and state politics has no significant effects on national ones, I think it's still valuable to increase turnout on elections for local races.

What I'm mostly concerned with here is the question of democratic legitimacy. A lot of people seem to have very low opinions of our political system. You've argued for a less centralized government (among other things), and while I still don't see any evidence that this would mean a less corrupt or less violent government, I will note that a lot of the governance that most directly affects people happens at the local level, yet citizen engagement here is very low. Would increased engagement (on this thread I've focused specifically on voting) increase people's sense of the legitimacy of government? That's in part something we can study, and yes, I'll see if I can find some relevant studies on this to share.


But, from your perspective as a harsh critic of our political system, I also would be curious as to your thoughts on citizen engagement and local government. Is it a problem that so few people vote for local races, even apart from any national implications?

Well I'm confused.  You have made these claims, which you seem to be back tracking on a bit.  However, by your own standards, you have not offered anything in support outside some dubious anecdotal evidence.  Where are the peer reviewed papers?   

Does this stop you from offering solutions?  It seems not.  

tourne said:
Force people to vote! Fine them if they don't. It works.

tourne seems to 2nd your some of your suggestions.  OK.  I'll bite.  What happens if people don't pay the fine?  

Good question -- how would you like them to? The legislation hasn't been written yet, so it's wide open.

I'm as liberal as many on here, but the idea of forcing people to vote doesn't sit right.  Making it easier to vote - motor voter, early, weekend and absentee - absolutely, but forcing them to vote - no.

The right wants to restrict access to voting for political reasons - not because it is right.  For the left to force people to vote seems overly political as well, as they see it as a political advantage.

The left will say it is an obligation, yadda, yadda, but the reality is that many are completely uneducated about the issues and fundamentally uninterested.

@terp - As I've stated each time you've asked, I'm happy to help find research on any specific claims you're interested in. So far, you've only specifically asked about my claim that local policies affect significant national ones. You've helped me amend my original, too broad formulation of that claim into a more specific one (I guess that's backtracking?).  You still seem skeptical of it though, which suggests you don't see the ACA as an example of significant national legislation. I'm happy to try to find a better example if you like, but at this point I'd probably need some help from you here - what is an example of what you consider "significant" national legislation? If you can give me some criteria, I can try to find an example that better fits what you're asking for.

Or do you perhaps mean this more broadly - you're interested on research on the relationship of local to national policies generally? I can see what I can find if you like.

As far as other research and data, I know you haven't asked directly about anything other than the local-national policy claim, but on the turnout-based claims I started this thread with, here's a good paper:

Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research

Section 4 of it specifically goes into the factors that seem to most impact voter turnout.  The earlier sections I think are interesting too, as they review what research has been done so far, and the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches, but I'm guessing you (and others on this thread) would be most interested in the last section. Not every proposal I made in my OP is covered in this paper, but some are, so if you're starting a reading list on turnout-related research, I think this is a good paper to add to that list.

On compulsory voting, which in your most recent post you ask about, the paper I linked to above discusses it in section 4.3.2. I think your question about "what happens if people don't pay the fine?"

I'm actually not sure. A number of other democracies have compulsory voting on the books, so it'd probably be helpful to see how the administer/enforce this. Thinking about it some more, though, I think there's some serious questions to ask about it. There's the enforcement question you asked, which I think is a good one. There's also a bigger baked in here that I think is actually worth asking - eg, even though research shows compulsory voting increases turnout, does that mean people are actually more engaged with their government? Or is that just putting the cart before the horse - perhaps I'm mistaken in seeing "turnout" as a goal, and instead we should see it just as a metric?

Most of the other items in my OP assume that people want to vote, and we should figure out ways to reduce barriers. Compulsory voting uses the opposite logic -- assuming people don't actually want to vote, and the task is to overcome that reluctance. Will this really increase people's perception of the legitimacy of their government?

No promises on timelines, but I'll see if I can find any research to share on how compulsory voting has been working in countries that have it.

(shorter version of my post above: Research shows compulsory voting works, in that it increases turnout. But, there are some strong counterarguments and questions on whether it's a good idea. Even though I had it on my list of proposals at the top of the thread, I'm actually a bit undecided as to its wisdom)

Wow.  You can't help yourself but to put words in my mouth.  I never said that the ACA was not a "significant piece of national legislation".   But I also don't think that you can use 1 supposed example of local influencing national policy and make a sweeping generalization.   Heck.  I've been called a nihilist for far less.  

I don't think I need a peer reviewed study to tell me that compulsory voting is likely to result in higher voter turnout.  I don't think I need a peer reviewed study to convince me that compulsory anything is likely to result in more compliance with more anything...whatever that its.   That does not mean making that anything compulsory has a positive effect overall.  

Personally, and no I don't have any peer reviewed studies to back this up, I don't think the perception of the legitimacy of government has much to do with voting.  If anything, it would probably be fleeting.  Once upon a time, we celebrated Iraq's elections and their impressive turnouts.  I wonder how what most Iraqi's think of the legitimacy of their government.

People aren't that stupid. I think the best way for a government to promote a perception legitimacy is to be legitimate.  I think a government that first and foremost lives up to its stated purpose would be great.  Perhaps one that lives within it's legal framework.  

That's the problem though.  Isn't it?  We have a government that violates our first, second, fourth, fifth, most recently 6th & 8th, 9th & 10th amendments.   Remember, that our Federal government's primary purpose is to protect these rights.  Yet, they violate them as a matter of course.  In the meantime, they push legislation through to expand their powers using extremely liberal definitions of the welfare and commerce clauses which further erode our rights. 

Just my 2 cents.

terp said:
Wow.  You can't help yourself but to put words in my mouth.  I never said that the ACA was not a "significant piece of national legislation".   But I also don't think that you can use 1 supposed example of local influencing national policy and make a sweeping generalization.  

Can you explain what you're looking for in regards to the ACA example, then? Based on your feedback, I've tried to make my generalization less sweeping, but you seem to have something specific you're looking for here. It sounds like perhaps there's a certain number of examples you'd like to be convinced that local policies affect significant national elections? You're absolutely right that we should be careful making too broad of conclusions bases on a small number of examples - maybe it would be helpful if I can find some  research on the general topic of local-national policy interactions, as I noted in my previous post?

Also, I really would be interested on your thoughts on the legitimacy of local government, since you have such strong criticism of the federal one. Do you think we should be concerned about the very low turnout for local races?

To drop to the level of anecdote for a bit (though an anecdote we can all share), the recent school board election in SOMA was very contested and, at least on MOL, was generating a lot of interest. I'd like to find turnout numbers (if anyone knows them, please post). In contrast in my town, W. Orange, the school board positions were unopposed. I actually just left those blank when I voted, as it feels weird to me to vote when there's not a challenger, and I personally didn't know enough about the people running to endorse them by voting.

I'd be curious if people in SOMA have a stronger perception of legitimacy toward their school board than those of us in W. Orange.  Not exactly robust data, granted, but an example of the relationship between voting and legitimacy I'm wondering about.

the notion that national policy is shaped at the local and state level is the entire raison d'etre of ALEC:

http://www.alec.org/about-alec/history/

Relevant to this thread:

Democratic Group Called iVote Pushes Automatic Voter Registration

PVW said:

terp said:
Wow.  You can't help yourself but to put words in my mouth.  I never said that the ACA was not a "significant piece of national legislation".   But I also don't think that you can use 1 supposed example of local influencing national policy and make a sweeping generalization.  

Can you explain what you're looking for in regards to the ACA example, then? Based on your feedback, I've tried to make my generalization less sweeping, but you seem to have something specific you're looking for here. It sounds like perhaps there's a certain number of examples you'd like to be convinced that local policies affect significant national elections? You're absolutely right that we should be careful making too broad of conclusions bases on a small number of examples - maybe it would be helpful if I can find some  research on the general topic of local-national policy interactions, as I noted in my previous post?
Also, I really would be interested on your thoughts on the legitimacy of local government, since you have such strong criticism of the federal one. Do you think we should be concerned about the very low turnout for local races?
To drop to the level of anecdote for a bit (though an anecdote we can all share), the recent school board election in SOMA was very contested and, at least on MOL, was generating a lot of interest. I'd like to find turnout numbers (if anyone knows them, please post). In contrast in my town, W. Orange, the school board positions were unopposed. I actually just left those blank when I voted, as it feels weird to me to vote when there's not a challenger, and I personally didn't know enough about the people running to endorse them by voting.

I'd be curious if people in SOMA have a stronger perception of legitimacy toward their school board than those of us in W. Orange.  Not exactly robust data, granted, but an example of the relationship between voting and legitimacy I'm wondering about.

I wasn't looking for anything regarding the ACA. You made an assertion.  I asked for data(as you have requested from me repeatedly), you gave me an anecdote.  

I really don't know why you'd like to know my thoughts on the legitimacy of local government, as I apparently believe in nothing.  

I think our local governments largely carry out the orders of the larger governing bodies.  Much of the budget is spent on schools & this is a top down system starting at the Federal level down through the states to the local government.   

I never really thought about our local government as illegitimate.  I disagree with quite a bit that is done.  I think there are times that our property rights are infringed upon.   But there are some things about our local government.  I can talk to our mayor personally.  If I really don't like what is going on, I can move to a town that is run more to my liking.  It's not the easiest thing, but it definitely poses fewer problems than moving to another state or certainly to another country.  

I don't really get hung up on voter turnout.  I suppose the people that care will probably vote.  This is going to be really controversial.  I used to believe in the whole Majority rules system.  But, really good governance is good governance.  Bad governance is bad governance.  Thus, I would rather live in a system where I didn't get a vote, but my natural rights were protected than a system where I got a vote, but my natural rights are violated on a regular basis.   

terp said:
I wasn't looking for anything regarding the ACA. You made an assertion.  I asked for data(as you have requested from me repeatedly), you gave me an anecdote.  
I really don't know why you'd like to know my thoughts on the legitimacy of local government, as I apparently believe in nothing.  
I think our local governments largely carry out the orders of the larger governing bodies.  Much of the budget is spent on schools & this is a top down system starting at the Federal level down through the states to the local government.   
I never really thought about our local government as illegitimate.  I disagree with quite a bit that is done.  I think there are times that our property rights are infringed upon.   But there are some things about our local government.  I can talk to our mayor personally.  If I really don't like what is going on, I can move to a town that is run more to my liking.  It's not the easiest thing, but it definitely poses fewer problems than moving to another state or certainly to another country.  

I don't really get hung up on voter turnout.  I suppose the people that care will probably vote.  This is going to be really controversial.  I used to believe in the whole Majority rules system.  But, really good governance is good governance.  Bad governance is bad governance.  Thus, I would rather live in a system where I didn't get a vote, but my natural rights were protected than a system where I got a vote, but my natural rights are violated on a regular basis.   

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on local government. 

Regarding your comments on the ACA, I was trying to answer your question. I thought since you'd helped me scope it down to the claim "local policies affect significant national policies" a good example would suffice - but as I've said repeatedly, I'm happy to try to find some more data beyond this example if you're interested. I certainly agree that anecdotes aren't really enough; I'll see what I come across this week and share.

Christie, what a guy !!!!

New Jersey’s voter-turnout rate is among the lowest in the country. During
the 2014 midterm elections, 30.4 percent of the state’s eligible voters
went to the polls. Last week, only 21 percent of voters came out — the worst showing for a general election in state history.

That’s a big reason state lawmakers in June passed the New Jersey Democracy Act— a bill that would make voting easier by, among other things, expanding early-voting opportunities, introducing online registration and, perhaps most significant, automatically registering eligible voters when they get a driver’s license, unless they decline.

It is hard to see how anyone could disagree with making it easier for
more citizens to vote, but Gov. Chris Christie found a way. On Monday,
Mr. Christie, whose 2013 re-election set a state record for the lowest turnout in a race for governor, vetoed the bill on the grounds that it would cost too much, that residents already have plenty of ways to register and that automatic registration would encourage that boogeyman of modern Republican politics — voter fraud.

He's worried about cost?