|
Hong Kong9169 Posts
On November 06 2012 06:02 Terranist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:52 FabledIntegral wrote:
I see no reason to vote. My individual vote will have zero impact on the election, and I get spammed shit via mail when I register.
Whether other people have this mentality as well is a completely flawed argument that doesn't detract from how it affects me as an individual. not to mention if you live in a far left or far right state, your vote is basically decided for you and all you're doing is signing up for junk mail and jury duty service selection.
On November 06 2012 04:10 itsjustatank wrote:
You do realize there are other things to vote on in an election season than that for highest office? A lot of those things will fundamentally affect you much more than whoever might end up being elected president (mayorships, initiatives and referendum, etc).
|
On November 06 2012 06:02 wo1fwood wrote:'Murica, Go Vote!
Seriously, I've been albe to vote since Gore vs. Bush, and the election was decided that year by under 600 votes. This is always a possibility in an election, and those who didn't vote in that election would have been able to decide who won.
Except that's a terribly inaccurate portrayal because the 600 votes applied to a state, not the nation. Not that it would matter to me if the electoral college was even completely rid of, but at least the votes of many people would "count" in such a situation. Right now, concerning voting for the President himself, it's entirely useless if you live in a state like CA.
|
On November 06 2012 06:06 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:58 DigiGnar wrote:
Voting for president is a waste of time. The popular vote is to sway the electoral vote, who really elects the president. So, it's more important to vote for who/how the electorals get their status. As someone mentions below you, the votes of 600 people in Florida swayed the electoral vote in the elections of 2000.
This:
In 2000, Al Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and 266 electoral votes. George W. Bush won only 47.87% of the popular vote but received 271 electoral votes, thus won the election.
Also:
This is because 48 states award all their electoral votes to the winner, regardless of how large their margin of victory was.
|
On November 06 2012 06:07 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:02 wo1fwood wrote:'Murica, Go Vote!
Seriously, I've been albe to vote since Gore vs. Bush, and the election was decided that year by under 600 votes. This is always a possibility in an election, and those who didn't vote in that election would have been able to decide who won. Except that's a terribly inaccurate portrayal because the 600 votes applied to a state, not the nation. Not that it would matter to me if the electoral college was even completely rid of, but at least the votes of many people would "count" in such a situation. Right now, concerning voting for the President himself, it's entirely useless if you live in a state like CA.
Sure that applied to only Florida, but let me give you some stats about FL in 2000. The 2000 census recorded a projected number of over 15.9 million residents in Florida, and that still includes over 11 million people who could have voted in the election. Can you really tell me that there weren't at least 1200 people who didn't vote that year? I find it highly unlikely with all the numbers we know that there weren't at least 1200 people who hadn't voted.
Edit: ok so there were apparently around 6 million ballots cast in the 2000 election. That is a little more than half of the state voting...
|
On November 06 2012 06:01 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:52 Jerubaal wrote:On November 06 2012 05:36 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:19 Jerubaal wrote:
The low voter turnout in the United States can be explained almost entirely on two factors. 1. Institutional: Non compulsory voting. No election holiday. Different voting days for various elections. Voting registration. 2. Periods of "social cleavage events", i.e. voting blocs are formed by events causing social cleavage like depressions, wars, etc. The 1940s Great Depression was the last clear cut social cleavage event. You could call the 1960s a mini one but only for the Democrats and since then we've been starting and stopping and trying to figure out where the parties are headed. Basically, social cleavage events increase political participation and then it winds down again until the next major event. We've been stop and go for a while, so who knows what will happen this election. I predict it will be down a bit from last time but still higher than the decade average before.
I'm focusing mainly on people who actively refuse to vote. They could vote but choose not to, usually because of a political reason, apathy, or straight-up ignorance. I agree that many of the things you listed above would help drive turnout substantially. As for cleavage event, this recent economic crisis might turn out to be one. There are two types of people who don't vote. People who are disengaged from the political process and people who claim to have "principled disgust". The former are vastly in the majority. I don't think I want those people voting. I don't even know if there's a way to forcefeed these people information. The second group is largely imaginary and where they actually exist exist largely in academia. Would you say frictional unemployment doesn't exist as well? There isn't much data on the motives for people who do not vote so political scientists just ignore them or argue that institutional shifts will account for them. I disagree with this approach. It assumes those 80 million or so people don't actually have an opinion either way and would never express their preferences. It may be idealistic, but I'd like to see what might happen if they ended up voting.
Disagree. Like I said, the evidence is that people who don't vote are disengaged from politics. The sprinkling of people who make a rational decision to not vote are an aberration. I don't consider the C- slackers who think they know shit but don't as part of the "principled disgust" crowd.
|
Hong Kong9169 Posts
On November 06 2012 06:14 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:01 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:52 Jerubaal wrote:On November 06 2012 05:36 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:19 Jerubaal wrote:
The low voter turnout in the United States can be explained almost entirely on two factors. 1. Institutional: Non compulsory voting. No election holiday. Different voting days for various elections. Voting registration. 2. Periods of "social cleavage events", i.e. voting blocs are formed by events causing social cleavage like depressions, wars, etc. The 1940s Great Depression was the last clear cut social cleavage event. You could call the 1960s a mini one but only for the Democrats and since then we've been starting and stopping and trying to figure out where the parties are headed. Basically, social cleavage events increase political participation and then it winds down again until the next major event. We've been stop and go for a while, so who knows what will happen this election. I predict it will be down a bit from last time but still higher than the decade average before.
I'm focusing mainly on people who actively refuse to vote. They could vote but choose not to, usually because of a political reason, apathy, or straight-up ignorance. I agree that many of the things you listed above would help drive turnout substantially. As for cleavage event, this recent economic crisis might turn out to be one. There are two types of people who don't vote. People who are disengaged from the political process and people who claim to have "principled disgust". The former are vastly in the majority. I don't think I want those people voting. I don't even know if there's a way to forcefeed these people information. The second group is largely imaginary and where they actually exist exist largely in academia. Would you say frictional unemployment doesn't exist as well? There isn't much data on the motives for people who do not vote so political scientists just ignore them or argue that institutional shifts will account for them. I disagree with this approach. It assumes those 80 million or so people don't actually have an opinion either way and would never express their preferences. It may be idealistic, but I'd like to see what might happen if they ended up voting. Disagree. Like I said, the evidence is that people who don't vote are disengaged from politics. The sprinkling of people who make a rational decision to not vote are an aberration. I don't consider the C- slackers who think they know shit but don't as part of the "principled disgust" crowd.
I do. Your approach assumes they will always remain uninformed and are better off not being part of the franchise in the first place.
|
On November 06 2012 06:06 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:02 Terranist wrote:On November 06 2012 05:52 FabledIntegral wrote:
I see no reason to vote. My individual vote will have zero impact on the election, and I get spammed shit via mail when I register.
Whether other people have this mentality as well is a completely flawed argument that doesn't detract from how it affects me as an individual. not to mention if you live in a far left or far right state, your vote is basically decided for you and all you're doing is signing up for junk mail and jury duty service selection. Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 04:10 itsjustatank wrote:
You do realize there are other things to vote on in an election season than that for highest office? A lot of those things will fundamentally affect you much more than whoever might end up being elected president (mayorships, initiatives and referendum, etc).
that doesn't excuse having a horribly flawed system.
|
On November 06 2012 06:13 wo1fwood wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:07 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 06 2012 06:02 wo1fwood wrote:'Murica, Go Vote!
Seriously, I've been albe to vote since Gore vs. Bush, and the election was decided that year by under 600 votes. This is always a possibility in an election, and those who didn't vote in that election would have been able to decide who won. Except that's a terribly inaccurate portrayal because the 600 votes applied to a state, not the nation. Not that it would matter to me if the electoral college was even completely rid of, but at least the votes of many people would "count" in such a situation. Right now, concerning voting for the President himself, it's entirely useless if you live in a state like CA. Sure that applied to only Florida, but let me give you some stats about FL in 2000. The 2000 census recorded a projected number of over 15.9 million residents in Florida, and that still includes over 11 million people who could have voted in the election. Can you really tell me that there weren't at least 1200 people who didn't vote that year? I find it highly unlikely with all the numbers we know that there weren't at least 1200 people who hadn't voted.
And what's your point? I don't live in Florida.
|
Hong Kong9169 Posts
On November 06 2012 06:11 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:06 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:58 DigiGnar wrote:
Voting for president is a waste of time. The popular vote is to sway the electoral vote, who really elects the president. So, it's more important to vote for who/how the electorals get their status. As someone mentions below you, the votes of 600 people in Florida swayed the electoral vote in the elections of 2000. This: Show nested quote +In 2000, Al Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and 266 electoral votes. George W. Bush won only 47.87% of the popular vote but received 271 electoral votes, thus won the election. Also: Show nested quote +This is because 48 states award all their electoral votes to the winner, regardless of how large their margin of victory was.
Beyond this discussion is the fact that 80 million people (larger than the proportions of partisans who vote in the two-party consensus) don't express their political preferences at all. The Electoral College and other things will continue to exist without their participation in the process.
Any change in the institutional limitations to multi-party politics must be made through constitutional convention (or revolution), and will require the preferences of this silent majority to pass.
|
On November 06 2012 05:46 Phailol wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:40 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:38 Phailol wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, every single politician is a crook trying to serve their own ends and fill their own pocket books.
Every.
Single.
One.
This is why I don't vote. No matter who is at the helm, its going to be the same every single time And nothing will ever change because you refuse to express your preferences in any meaningful way. Outside of violent revolution, change will never occur in the status quo outside of the ballot box. And my voice is never going to matter. I'm just a cockroach among millions as far as those bastards are concerned. They don't care about the general populace, they don't care about what the people want. They want whatever will benefit them, and there is nothing that will change that. I'm sorry that you're so disillusioned from that, that you even think you even remotely have a chance at changing anything
Have you ever written your representative or senator in congress? Have you ever even BOTHERED to speak out? Few enough people do this that it gets noticed.
If you're just going to let yourself be stepped on and go unheard, then you're going to be what you describe because you choose to be.
|
Hong Kong9169 Posts
On November 06 2012 06:22 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:46 Phailol wrote:On November 06 2012 05:40 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:38 Phailol wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, every single politician is a crook trying to serve their own ends and fill their own pocket books.
Every.
Single.
One.
This is why I don't vote. No matter who is at the helm, its going to be the same every single time And nothing will ever change because you refuse to express your preferences in any meaningful way. Outside of violent revolution, change will never occur in the status quo outside of the ballot box. And my voice is never going to matter. I'm just a cockroach among millions as far as those bastards are concerned. They don't care about the general populace, they don't care about what the people want. They want whatever will benefit them, and there is nothing that will change that. I'm sorry that you're so disillusioned from that, that you even think you even remotely have a chance at changing anything Have you ever written your representative or senator in congress? Have you ever even BOTHERED to speak out? Few enough people do this that it gets noticed. If you're just going to let yourself be stepped on and go unheard, then you're going to be what you describe because you choose to be.
Happy birthday!
|
not really getting the american system
getting 50,01% in one state and get ALL votes form the state is so 1800ish xD ^^
also only have 2 parties and have a direct voting candidat ^^ remembers me to german president elections between 1920-1940 ^^
ps: americans plz do the rest of the world and YOU a good thing and vote obama, if you vote romney ,,, no country in the world will take americans serious the next years ^^ you not wanna be laughts in every of your outlandish holidays want you ? xD
"i dont care 47% of the people anyway" -> "mehhh i am surely the 53%" ^^
|
On November 06 2012 05:46 Phailol wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:40 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:38 Phailol wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, every single politician is a crook trying to serve their own ends and fill their own pocket books.
Every.
Single.
One.
This is why I don't vote. No matter who is at the helm, its going to be the same every single time And nothing will ever change because you refuse to express your preferences in any meaningful way. Outside of violent revolution, change will never occur in the status quo outside of the ballot box. And my voice is never going to matter. I'm just a cockroach among millions as far as those bastards are concerned. They don't care about the general populace, they don't care about what the people want. They want whatever will benefit them, and there is nothing that will change that. I'm sorry that you're so disillusioned from that, that you even think you even remotely have a chance at changing anything
to many thought taht in florida and WHUUUPS bush was ellected xD by if i remember a few hundret votes ? or douzend ? ^^
|
Voted via absentee already. Got my fiancee to care about voting for the first time as well 
Go vote! I don't care who for, just show up.
|
United States10328 Posts
On November 06 2012 05:13 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:11 ]343[ wrote:
well, I apparently didn't get my absentee ballot request through, so gggggggggggg What state? Some states even let you register to vote on election day. High chance you can still get a ballot in.
NC. I submitted my absentee request a day before the deadline (a week before election day), but I checked my "absentee ballot status" and I'm not registered in the system...
|
Hong Kong9169 Posts
On November 06 2012 06:43 ]343[ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 05:13 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:11 ]343[ wrote:
well, I apparently didn't get my absentee ballot request through, so gggggggggggg What state? Some states even let you register to vote on election day. High chance you can still get a ballot in. NC. I submitted my absentee request a day before the deadline (a week before election day), but I checked my "absentee ballot status" and I'm not registered in the system...
Get in contact with your local authorities. At any rate you should be allowed to vote in person tomorrow at your local poll because you are registered.
|
On November 06 2012 06:16 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:14 Jerubaal wrote:On November 06 2012 06:01 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:52 Jerubaal wrote:On November 06 2012 05:36 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:19 Jerubaal wrote:
The low voter turnout in the United States can be explained almost entirely on two factors. 1. Institutional: Non compulsory voting. No election holiday. Different voting days for various elections. Voting registration. 2. Periods of "social cleavage events", i.e. voting blocs are formed by events causing social cleavage like depressions, wars, etc. The 1940s Great Depression was the last clear cut social cleavage event. You could call the 1960s a mini one but only for the Democrats and since then we've been starting and stopping and trying to figure out where the parties are headed. Basically, social cleavage events increase political participation and then it winds down again until the next major event. We've been stop and go for a while, so who knows what will happen this election. I predict it will be down a bit from last time but still higher than the decade average before.
I'm focusing mainly on people who actively refuse to vote. They could vote but choose not to, usually because of a political reason, apathy, or straight-up ignorance. I agree that many of the things you listed above would help drive turnout substantially. As for cleavage event, this recent economic crisis might turn out to be one. There are two types of people who don't vote. People who are disengaged from the political process and people who claim to have "principled disgust". The former are vastly in the majority. I don't think I want those people voting. I don't even know if there's a way to forcefeed these people information. The second group is largely imaginary and where they actually exist exist largely in academia. Would you say frictional unemployment doesn't exist as well? There isn't much data on the motives for people who do not vote so political scientists just ignore them or argue that institutional shifts will account for them. I disagree with this approach. It assumes those 80 million or so people don't actually have an opinion either way and would never express their preferences. It may be idealistic, but I'd like to see what might happen if they ended up voting. Disagree. Like I said, the evidence is that people who don't vote are disengaged from politics. The sprinkling of people who make a rational decision to not vote are an aberration. I don't consider the C- slackers who think they know shit but don't as part of the "principled disgust" crowd. I do. Your approach assumes they will always remain uninformed and are better off not being part of the franchise in the first place.
It's a chicken before the egg question. Are they uninformed because they don't vote or do they not vote because they are uninformed? Nobody's stopping anyone from becoming more engaged but I question if hand-holding is helpful.
On November 06 2012 06:34 CoR wrote:
not really getting the american system
getting 50,01% in one state and get ALL votes form the state is so 1800ish xD ^^
also only have 2 parties and have a direct voting candidat ^^ remembers me to german president elections between 1920-1940 ^^
ps: americans plz do the rest of the world and YOU a good thing and vote obama, if you vote romney ,,, no country in the world will take americans serious the next years ^^ you not wanna be laughts in every of your outlandish holidays want you ? xD
"i dont care 47% of the people anyway" -> "mehhh i am surely the 53%" ^^
1800ish? Sounds like a compliment as the average length of a form of government for Europe is ~50 years. Doubly ironic is that the German system basically takes all the good parts of the U.S. system and improves upon them.
-A more robust form of federalism
-A powerful but limited high court with a defined role.
Not surprising considering the U.S. helped you write it. By the way, no other country in the world has any popular input on presidential candidates or executives. Every other country has theirs chosen by their parties. So lol?
|
United States10328 Posts
On November 06 2012 06:47 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:43 ]343[ wrote:On November 06 2012 05:13 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:11 ]343[ wrote:
well, I apparently didn't get my absentee ballot request through, so gggggggggggg What state? Some states even let you register to vote on election day. High chance you can still get a ballot in. NC. I submitted my absentee request a day before the deadline (a week before election day), but I checked my "absentee ballot status" and I'm not registered in the system... Get in contact with your local authorities. At any rate you should be allowed to vote in person tomorrow at your local poll because you are registered.
wait, I'm not registered in MA (where I am right now) though?
|
Hong Kong9169 Posts
On November 06 2012 06:56 ]343[ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:47 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 06:43 ]343[ wrote:On November 06 2012 05:13 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:11 ]343[ wrote:
well, I apparently didn't get my absentee ballot request through, so gggggggggggg What state? Some states even let you register to vote on election day. High chance you can still get a ballot in. NC. I submitted my absentee request a day before the deadline (a week before election day), but I checked my "absentee ballot status" and I'm not registered in the system... Get in contact with your local authorities. At any rate you should be allowed to vote in person tomorrow at your local poll because you are registered. wait, I'm not registered in MA (where I am right now) though?
Didn't you have to register to vote before requesting absentee? Or was this both registering to vote and requesting absentee?
Unfortunately, MA cuts off registration to 20 days before an election. Get in touch with your local voting authorities. If you sent it in before the deadline you should be able to vote, IMO.
You could always contact the local ACLU if you have additional questions or feel your rights have been violated as well, they are usually out in force about these issues come election season.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On November 06 2012 06:53 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:16 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 06:14 Jerubaal wrote:On November 06 2012 06:01 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:52 Jerubaal wrote:On November 06 2012 05:36 itsjustatank wrote:On November 06 2012 05:19 Jerubaal wrote:
The low voter turnout in the United States can be explained almost entirely on two factors. 1. Institutional: Non compulsory voting. No election holiday. Different voting days for various elections. Voting registration. 2. Periods of "social cleavage events", i.e. voting blocs are formed by events causing social cleavage like depressions, wars, etc. The 1940s Great Depression was the last clear cut social cleavage event. You could call the 1960s a mini one but only for the Democrats and since then we've been starting and stopping and trying to figure out where the parties are headed. Basically, social cleavage events increase political participation and then it winds down again until the next major event. We've been stop and go for a while, so who knows what will happen this election. I predict it will be down a bit from last time but still higher than the decade average before.
I'm focusing mainly on people who actively refuse to vote. They could vote but choose not to, usually because of a political reason, apathy, or straight-up ignorance. I agree that many of the things you listed above would help drive turnout substantially. As for cleavage event, this recent economic crisis might turn out to be one. There are two types of people who don't vote. People who are disengaged from the political process and people who claim to have "principled disgust". The former are vastly in the majority. I don't think I want those people voting. I don't even know if there's a way to forcefeed these people information. The second group is largely imaginary and where they actually exist exist largely in academia. Would you say frictional unemployment doesn't exist as well? There isn't much data on the motives for people who do not vote so political scientists just ignore them or argue that institutional shifts will account for them. I disagree with this approach. It assumes those 80 million or so people don't actually have an opinion either way and would never express their preferences. It may be idealistic, but I'd like to see what might happen if they ended up voting. Disagree. Like I said, the evidence is that people who don't vote are disengaged from politics. The sprinkling of people who make a rational decision to not vote are an aberration. I don't consider the C- slackers who think they know shit but don't as part of the "principled disgust" crowd. I do. Your approach assumes they will always remain uninformed and are better off not being part of the franchise in the first place. It's a chicken before the egg question. Are they uninformed because they don't vote or do they not vote because they are uninformed? Nobody's stopping anyone from becoming more engaged but I question if hand-holding is helpful. Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 06:34 CoR wrote:
not really getting the american system
getting 50,01% in one state and get ALL votes form the state is so 1800ish xD ^^
also only have 2 parties and have a direct voting candidat ^^ remembers me to german president elections between 1920-1940 ^^
ps: americans plz do the rest of the world and YOU a good thing and vote obama, if you vote romney ,,, no country in the world will take americans serious the next years ^^ you not wanna be laughts in every of your outlandish holidays want you ? xD
"i dont care 47% of the people anyway" -> "mehhh i am surely the 53%" ^^ 1800ish? Sounds like a compliment as the average length of a form of government for Europe is ~50 years. Doubly ironic is that the German system basically takes all the good parts of the U.S. system and improves upon them. -A more robust form of federalism -A powerful but limited high court with a defined role. Not surprising considering the U.S. helped you write it. By the way, no other country in the world has any popular input on presidential candidates or executives. Every other country has theirs chosen by their parties. So lol?
So what's the rationale for the Electoral College? And don't just say "to protect the smaller states" because instead of the "big" states being important, it is just shifted to the "swing" states. Seems like the same problem to me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
