Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Craft said he’s experimenting with his own plug-in system at home donated by EcoFlow.
While increased green energy adoption is a good thing, it's a form of corruption for government employees to receive free products for their personal use from the companies they regulate.
I mean theoretically red states should love solar. Its sovereign technology that reduces your dependency on the government and society.
But as usual, the ideology is all smoke and mirrors and what's really important is making sure coal companies can continue to pollute the atmosphere and make more money for politicians.
People differ from their politicians. Lots of right leaning people love solar, especially in remote areas because they don't trust the grid for a variety of reasons, or just hate paying for the hookup
People differ from their politicians.
Then why do they vote for them?
Usually single issue voters. A lot of people select the single issue they care about and vote for whichever party or politician agrees with them on that one thing, the rest is ignored.
Another decent chunk grew up in a household and community of X party members and assume the party mirrors their beliefs near perfectly since everyone the know who is an X party member agrees with them.
Smaller chunks of people will vote for one major party in the house/Senate and the other party everywhere else so that things are "balanced".
Another small chunk of people as a matter of principle will vote for anyone who is running that hasn't held office before vs the incumbent to make sure we rotate the politicians and have fresh ideas and faces.
The last small chunk looks at each position, tries to evaluate whether the candidates are likely to perform well in a given role, then select the best fit regardless of party, or in many cases least bad fit.
These are all paradigms of voting and party election I have personally encountered in the US. There are a few others such as 3rd party only, write in, or just random (like literally roll dice in the voting booth), but those are so rare it's not worth expanding on for now.
The thing to take away is many people "aren't political" aka they don't watch/read the news, they just pick up whatever happens to come up at work. These are the second option and usually sone of the most common voting strategies in the US. If you get to talking to them, thier actual politics never align with their party affiliation, they will vote down ballot for their party anyway.
The other large block is single issue voters, they are either incredibly engaged politically or literally just care about and their hobby, their library, whatever it is, either way they distill their single driving issue. Whether that's library funding, abortion, or whatever bee is really in their bonnet this week. They will almost always down ballot for whatever party is protecting their one thing, or destroying their one thing.
That's US politics in a nutshell. Easiest way to fix it is to abolish parties, maybe have a lottery for political office even. But as it stands the two largest voting strategies routinely vote against their wider interests.