Timeline for Why does a country like the United States have vote bank politics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 22, 2017 at 13:56 | history | edited | Bradley Wilson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
readability
|
| Nov 10, 2016 at 5:06 | history | edited | Jasper | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected typos.
|
| Oct 24, 2016 at 16:07 | comment | added | SJuan76 | Of course, the whole question, its fixation on black people alone (and not, for example, NRA members) and the disregard for the lack of the the practice of creating and maintaining votebanks through divisive policies makes me suspect that it is just a way of delivering the "It is not fair that black people don't vote Republicans! It must be some kind of hidden conspiracy!" alarmist message (I will not enter into the reasons why black people could generally prefer to vote Democrats than Republicans). | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 14:23 | comment | added | SJuan76 | @JeffLambert That's my point about the need to prove the ability of NAACP of changing the vote if they endorse a different party; for what I read the value of endorsements (from the NAACP, the NRA, or even the Dem & Rep parties) is influencing undecided people and ensuring that people already in that side make the effort of actually going to vote; these people can also apply peer pressure on others. Unless proof to the contrary, calling it "vote blocks" is much of a stretch. Also missing is the other parts of the definition; the politics implementing measures to keep people in those blocks. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 13:58 | comment | added | user5155 | This seems to me to be an argument completely about semantics. I can easily identify the caste leaders: each individual voter is a caste leader unto him/her self. I think the question the comments are seeking to resolve is, contrasting the previous with the notion of "king of the black people," where is the limit between individual agency and doing what one is told, and to what degree do influential people actually affect the aggregate block? In a sense we all vote based off of information given to us from others, whether it is the media's talking heads or the candidates themselves. | |
| Oct 24, 2016 at 7:53 | comment | added | ohwilleke♦ | There used to be something similar to "vote bank politics" in the U.S. involving political party machines that secured the votes of people (typically immigrants with little knowledge of politics) in exchange for providing tangible benefits like jobs and support in hard times, via a local political party official. But, this kind of "machine politics" was abolished by the progressive movement in the early 20th century. Demographic trends in voting are now mostly due to policies of the respective parties (e.g. right now the Republican party in the U.S. is basically a white nationalist party). | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 23:30 | comment | added | user4012 | @SJuan76 - you'd be surprised at how many people in US vote the way celebrities, talking heads, or community leaders tell them to vote. This is even more so in younger generations (I doubt Elvis held nearly as much political sway as, say, Rihanna or Gaga do). Admittedly, a lot of that influence is of a slower-moving propaganda variety that takes months or years, not of a "go tomorrow and change your vote" kind. But its just as effective. | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 23:17 | comment | added | SJuan76 | @user4012 I'll repeat myself for you. You know for sure that, if your "caste leaders" say that black people should vote for Trump, then black people would vote for Trump? I mean, you can say that the Sun must appear in the East tomorrow, but if tomorrow the Sun appears in the East, it does not mean that it is because of you and that you are a Master of the Universe. By the way, and relating your previous defense of K Dog behavior.... this video is completely unrelated to it: youtu.be/JRKoQXhOJNE?t=4994. Oh, and have a nice day! | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 23:03 | comment | added | user4012 | "Unless you can identify the "caste leaders" in the USA electoral process" - it's trivial to identify them. You are merely afraid to because it looks bad for one of the sides - but of course, omitting critical information isn't considered "biased" by people. | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 22:29 | comment | added | SJuan76 | @Rathony you seem to imply that if those "black leaders" endorsed Trump, black people would massively vote him, which is unclear in absence of data (either by "black leaders doing that", or some kind of poll or study researching it). Also, there is the absence of "creating of maintaining vote banks through divisive policies" (affirmative action wants to have the opposite effect). I think calling the situation "vote bank politics" is too much of a stretch, and that K Dog definition as "Identity politics" is probably better (shame of the rest of his answer). | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 13:59 | comment | added | Rathony | @SJuan76 I understand your argument, but it's just a matter of opinion or POV on how you interpret vote bank. Most (almost all) black leaders endorsed Clinton and they have a very big influence on the entire black voting block. The Dem Party has been taking advantage of this situation by implying the Rep. Party and some of its candidates are racist and don't like race equality. | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 13:46 | comment | added | SJuan76 | You need to prove a) that voters are voting only because they perception of block (ie. that they think "black people should vote Dem because that is what the NAACP says" instead of "Dem is the best option for me") and b) there politics try to create and maintain those votebanks through divisive politics (did you read your own post?). Again, demographic distribution of vote is not enough to make your claim. | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 13:36 | comment | added | NonResidentAlien | In vote bank politics, there are self declared (caste) leaders promise real or imagined benefits (as my initial post from Wikipedia states) - in that sense the NAACP and similar organizations do ask the black community to vote in a certain manner - even though the benefits have been imaginary. | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 13:29 | history | edited | SJuan76 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 276 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2016 at 13:27 | comment | added | SJuan76 | A clientelist relationship typically is based in the capacity of rewarding those who obey and/or punishing those who don't... It does not mean that it has to be physically, helping secure public helps or jobs would also count, of course. But without that capacity, it is not a clientelist system. The fact that some people say "we talk for all the black people" (which I doubt the NAACP even does) does not mean that the rest of the black people will follow them. And, still, there is the issue of what rewards the NAACP would be getting in this analogy... There are too many missing elements. | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 13:21 | history | edited | SJuan76 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 379 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2016 at 13:19 | comment | added | NonResidentAlien | Good point about the difference, but now that you have mentioned it, I do think that associations like the NAACP actively play the caste leader role. | |
| Oct 22, 2016 at 13:11 | history | answered | SJuan76 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |