I have a friend who is a devout evangelical (son of a preacher) and seems to be a follower of Christ -- who has voted for Trump every time.

I'm trying to find consensus with him and so far he's revealed that he holds no love for Trump (not even giving the line about him being a flawed vessel but still a gift from God).

He states he votes based on policy (which is an admirable thing in voting) and that he's a single-issue voter (not so admirable). The policy? Immigration. He believes that the Dems intentionally open the flood gates to migrants in order to create more Dem voters.

He cites how Dems have advocated for letting non-citizens vote as proof. And it's true, Dems have advocated for area residents to vote in some local elections in CA and NY.

When I pointed out the nature of those elections, and that Dems are always trying to increase voting participation across the board), as well as the fact that a majority of these new arrivals are effectively religious and conservative, he switches the conversation.

He's for single-payer health care and likely is for other "liberal" ideas, so I continue to try and engage with him on this in a gentle manner. I know that telling somebody to change their beliefs is a fool's errand, but seeds of doubt and providing new information might possibly let him arrive at a new conclusion on his own terms.

▲

mjamesaustin 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If your friend is a devout evangelical, maybe he'll reconsider his opinion about immigration if you direct him towards what the Bible says about immigrants and foreigners.

https://saintmarks.org/justice/renewing-our-covenant/what-do...

▲

unethical_ban 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Every time a person says they voted to oppose their least favorite party, we should all remember that first-past-the-post voting is the main reason we have a hyper-polarized two party system.

Your friend might have found another party than the Trump party to support tighter immigration and better healthcare policy. Instead, we have millions of people who will vote to destroy democracy rather than vote for someone who supports abortion or permitting trans people to exist.

▲

pstuart 2 days ago | parent [-]

I absolutely agree that the current system is bad (and we were warned by George Washington himself).

Rank based voting is touted as being a better approach but there's some reasonable criticism of it (too lazy to find and share a link).

Add to the list of things that need to change is campaign financing -- it's literally legalized bribery.

All of this change is possible, the problem is that those in power will do everything in their power to preserve their control.

▲

mrkeen 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I grew up with a ranked voting system. It has effectively been a two party system regardless. I don't think people know how it works and just treat it like first past the post.

Proportionate representation seems like it's probably better. I think everyone should skip the intermediate steps and jump straight to approval voting.

	▲	unethical_ban 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		If I really geek out on voting systems, the one I prefer the most is the River method, which is a ranked ballot but fixes some of the issues of Instant Runoff and allows equal ranking of multiple candidates. Any ranked system has some issues yes. I forget which criteria it fails but they are all better than FPTP. My issue with unranked approval voting is that IMO very few people have equal preference of lots of candidates. I think that it forces people to express themselves in a way that doesn't reflect their true preference, and that's a bad thing. Yes, I think multimember districts with proportional representation makes the most sense. For anyone interested, here is a site to visualize the River (and other) methods. https://votingmethods.net/cond/

▲

unethical_ban a day ago | parent | prev [-]

One quick note: there is a single political party that calls for banning alternatives to FPTP: Republicans. While party insiders at the DNC might not like the idea of diluted power, they haven't tried to ban voting reform. Nor have they vocally opposed campaign finance reform like Republicans.

▲

aerostable_slug 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> effectively religious and conservative

Your friend should have stuck to his guns, because that old saw is masking the truth: new migrants who become eligible to vote, and their birthright citizen children, overwhelmingly and reliably vote Democrat. And why wouldn't they? They perceive Democrats are who let them in and Democrats give them the entitlements they disproportionately depend on.

It is chicanery to pretend otherwise. It's also a brilliant plan and I congratulate the DNC on the long play. It works out great for their donors as well, as immigration tends to drive down labor costs for things like construction and agriculture.

	▲	DrillShopper 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> the entitlements they disproportionately depend on. [citation needed]