Well, under our two party system you end up with two shopping carts full of positions, and you've got to buy one of them. Now neither shopping cart typically lines up perfectly with a hypothetical voter, but what do you do if both baskets contain things that you feel deeply about and oppose?

For instance where should a voter who cares deeply about abortion and capital punishment to go? The Democrats are not simply pro-choice, they demean and belittle his pro-life position. The Republicans find it inconceivable that he doesn't want to execute people guilty of the most heinous crimes, and he's dismissed as an unserious bleeding-heart. So maybe it's not that he's unexcited by the issues, but rather because of his strong inclinations he has no one to vote for.

It might be that low turnout is evidence that the current 'baskets' of the two parties are poorly aligned with the current electorate.

Alternatively, these issues are chosen for prominence specifically because they're divisive.

Note how none of the issues you've listed actually threaten status quo economic interests.

(You might think immigration does, in that tightening it up would increase competition for labor. But the issue would be backstopped from harm to actual people long before the economics would be affected)

This seems rather reductive. Threatening economic interests isn't the only goal that matters. There are other issues that also matter quite a bit.

Voting isn't like going to the shopping mall to buy something for yourself. It's something you do because politics also affects other people.

To the business interests that sponsor the elections and the general news cycle, it certainly is the goal! What a better way to assure your victory than to make sure people are busy fighting about things that don't affect you?

> Voting isn't like going to the shopping mall to buy something for yourself. It's something you do because politics also affects other people.

You're saying this like the philosophy of acting for a greater good isn't already reflected in my position, and so supports your argument Yet, regarding the issues you've listed, half the people voting are doing it because it negatively affects others? That's clearly nonsensical!

What I'm trying to get across is to ask yourself why these particular issues are so pressing and prominent. Not for yourself (I assume you've already done this). Not for the "others" (although you should do this). But constructively, in the larger scale.

If you have someone to defend, it doesn't really matter who made it an issue. Whatever new tactic is being tried, you still have to play defense. Not defending means losing.

Understanding the larger forces in play might be intellectually interesting, but if it results in apathy and forgetting to play defense it's just another way to lose.

Maybe voting isn't going to make things a whole lot better, but remember that it could always be worse.

"Defense" is the age-old refrain of the attacker.

And from a neutral point of view, both teams are doing a lot of attacking - while also seeing themselves as being under attack. Given the circularity, taking a step back and analyzing the larger picture intellectually is the only way to possibly win!

It's funny how we could see the sensationalism of the news cycle as it ramped up in traditional channels, but now that much of our media is our own social echo chamber, it's less perceptible.

The divisions are both extreme and bad. I don't want Nationalist isolationism anymore than I want unrelenting psudeo-socalist globalists who are Both clearly in the pocket of big business. No, the issues of social identity are not the real issues facing our country in my humble opinion.