8 Election myths you probably believe

[Street Knowledge]

8 Election Myths You Probably Believe | Cracked.com


#8. Myth: It's All Pointless, Since Candidates Don't Keep Their Promises Anyway


"Nothing unifies voters more than the cynicism they share after a politician lies to them. Those who vote do so because they're optimistic, but at the end of the day, we're always ready for politicians to fail to deliver on any of their campaign promises once we put them in office. We believe that hopeful future presidents, like all job candidates, will say anything their prospective employers want to hear in hopes of securing the gig. George H.W. Bush going back on his no tax hike promise, Barack Obama's failure to close Gitmo, William Howard Taft's promise to lose 30 pounds -- these people speak only in lies.

But Actually ...
Statistically, those failures were actually the exception, not the rule. Political scientists in the 1980s set out to evaluate the promise-keeping history of American presidents and found that 75 percent of pre-election pledges made by presidents Wilson through Carter were met. Most people are lucky to keep that kind of ratio going in a marriage, let alone while running a country. And yes, this trend still holds true with our modern leaders.

For instance, during the 2008 campaign, Obama made 508 distinct promises for his term in office. As of right now, he's successfully followed through on 193 of those promises. That sounds a little low, but you have to take into account the fact that "president" doesn't mean "dictator." A president can't just do anything he wants -- he has to work with Congress, and because Congress isn't exclusively populated by Obama's friends, it means that he needs to compromise. Which he did, on another 79 of those promises. Another 44 have stalled, while 102 are still "in the works." Add all that up, and you'll see that Obama at least made the effort to fulfill some 418 of his 508 campaign promises. Nearly half of those efforts have, so far, been successful."

 

[Street Knowledge]

#7. Myth: Campaigns Run Mindless Attack Ads Instead of Giving Us Substance

"And everyone hates them -- 80 percent of voters find negative ads unethical and damaging to democracy. Plus, we (again) assume that politicians are twisting the truth to manipulate us. This isn't the 1950s, guys; we don't fall for everything we see on television. Why not just knock it off and stop ruining democracy?

When exposed to a barrage of negativity, we may feign disgust, but are actually more likely to show up at the polls. Oh, and we're better informed, too -- in one study, people who watched attack ads knew more about the issues of the election than others. After all, negative commercials prompt fact-checking and force opponents to issue a response to clear their names. So what some would call deplorable smear campaigns that belong in the gutter, others would call a dialogue. And it's the voters who benefit.

It's just the way your brain works. It's easy to ignore video of a candidate standing in a wheat field with inspirational music playing while he talks about his small town American values. But negative language sticks with us. It's evolution, as well as common sense -- your brain is tuned to look for problems so they can be solved. A positive and negative ad can each contain an equal amount of good information, but your brain perks up at the one that's also saying, "If you elect this other guy, that's going to create a big problem in your life." It's the same reason you have one reaction to seeing a bunny rabbit and another to seeing a tiger"

 

[Zach Lowe]

People believe all these things for good reasons

Calling them "myths" is very dishonest

The writer of the article may not agree with these things or think that they're blown out of proportion but they're all very real ideas

 

[Street Knowledge]

#6 . Myth: The Two-Party System Is Dividing Us into Opposing Tribes of Extremists

"Choices are nice, but there's one underrated advantage of the two-party system: It makes everyone more moderate. Multiparty systems, as attractive as they may sound, also lead to more fanaticism.

Think of it this way: Say you have a group of 10 dudes who are trying to figure out where to go out to eat. If the town only has two restaurants (a Hooters and a low-rent Hooters knockoff called TitWings), it's easier to get everybody to all agree on Hooters -- you only need six guys to come around. But if there are dozens of restaurants and each guy wants to go to a different one, they're all going to argue at the bar until they starve to death a month later. It's simply easier to bring people together when they don't have that many places to go. So despite how extreme Democrats and Republicans each claim the other party is, ideological polarization is less likely with only two parties.

For proof, look at the Galactic Senate. Or India. Let's just go with India. Multiparty systems foster excessive regionalism, with elected leaders focusing on trivial local concerns rather than larger national ones, the equivalent of that one lone guy who is zealous about eating at Buffalo Boobs despite the fact that it's not even a restaurant. This is the problem in India, which has so many political parties that we can't count them, making the country so difficult to manage that it's often called a "functioning anarchy."


#5. Myth: Political Rhetoric Is More Hateful and Divisive Than Ever

"Quick quiz: Name the presidential candidate who was so awful that his opponent's supporters warned that if the guy won ...
"... murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced. The air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes."
And also that voters would see their children "writhing on a pike." So who was it? Bill Clinton? Hitler? Nope, Thomas Jefferson. In 1800, supporters of John Adams warned that Jefferson's election would lead to Cormac McCarthyworld. Apparently early Americans were really into the apocalypse back then, because Jefferson won.

What we're trying to say is that what qualifies as "harsh" now would be considered weak centuries ago, and in fact, anywhere else in the world today. For example, here's a video of a slight kerfuffle between the departed senators Arlen Specter and Edward Kennedy during the Alito hearings in 2006. If you can make it, you'll notice at the 3:35 mark where Specter mildly rebukes Kennedy when the latter implies that he could call for votes instead of Specter, who was the committee chairman at the time.

Obviously, our point isn't that it's a good thing for people to act like dikks during a debate. It's that you always have to judge these things in context. A world where people rely purely on cold logic when discussing policy differences would be nice, but that's not our world. Not now, and not ever in the past."

 

[tru_m.a.c]

So they answered an election myth, but focusing on 42 individuals

 

[tru_m.a.c]

fukk ppl who make their votes based on political ads

 

[tru_m.a.c]

4 myths in, and all these things described the uninformed electorate

 

[Street Knowledge]

#2. Myth: Voter Turnout Is Plummeting, and Voter Apathy Is at an All-Time High

"One story that news stations always pick up during an election year is the voter turnout, or to be more precise, the lack thereof. After the Nixon/Humphrey election of 1968, a year that also saw the assassinations of two major political figures, the U.S. was just plain tired, and Americans decided that they'd rather stay home and nap for the next election in 1972. Turnout dropped like a rock, going from around 61 percent to 55 percent, and it just kept going downhill from there. At its lowest, 1996, only around 48 percent of voters got in on the action, and according to the numbers, we're only now returning to the same voter levels as 1972, the Year of the Great Big Who Gives a fukk. So we're not exactly doing great.

It's not that we're bad at motivating voters; it's that we're bad at math.
People have been trying to figure out why turnout dropped for some time now. Part of the reason for the initial 1972 drop is the ratification of the 26th Amendment, which made 18-year-olds eligible to vote, and we all know how much we can count on them to do something important.

But the other problem is just the way we calculate it. Voter turnout is generally measured by taking the total number of voters in an election and dividing it by the total over-18 population of the United States. The problem is, not everyone is eligible to vote; as Futurama reminded us, anyone who has been convicted of a felony is ineligible to vote. There are also numerous immigrants who aren't quite eligible to vote yet, along with overseas Americans who still retain the right to vote in our elections. If you measure the total eligible population, even though there are some dips and rises from year to year, the numbers look much better.


In fact, as of 2008, turnout was as good as it was in 1968, which is great. Our ability to properly calculate and talk about voter turnout? Not so much."