Discussion about this post

User's avatar
avalancheGenesis's avatar

>Any resemblance to actual persons or policy proposals, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

I do think you did a good job of making both parties a funhouse pastiche. It's obviously implied which is which, but there's just enough jarring noise to elicit confusion and thought. Better yet, all these policy positions actually have been credibly made from both sides in our contemporaneous Earth!

It's also interesting to consider how each and every voter is potentially the Olivia Hart for any given election, with increasing probability-mass as scope decreases. I'm not aware of an exactly symmetrical scenario like this coming up - I guess Florida Hanging Chads was the closest historically - but there's at least a theoretical model where each vote is a tiebreaker. Even if the odds on any individual vote are very slim, and that doesn't even require pondering the faithless-electors dilemma. I think that's the best answer to the freshman-level nihilistic take that "my vote doesn't matter, so I won't bother": a Pascal's Wager. No matter how small the odds, would __anyone__ want to be in a position like this? (Even retroactively, like at the Pearly Gates or whatever?) To paraphrase the Midwestern saying, "Have exactly the government you deserve."

Either way, I'd definitely vote for the Matt Yglesias stand-in without thinking too hard, if this were our 2024. (That __was__ purely coincidental, yes?)

Expand full comment
Caroline Newheiser's avatar

AAAAACK! You left us hanging!

It's a clever story, though.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts