EPTGo Vote - Page 4
| Blogs > itsjustatank |
|
KING CHARLIE :D
United States447 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:20 bkrow wrote: 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? The presidential election is not meant to be wholly democratic. The representative branch is wholly democratic. The electoral college is there to prevent tyranny of the majority, to put just one more hurdle in the way of dictatorship. Yes, there's an element of randomness and clunkiness and that's by design. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:31 KING CHARLIE :D wrote: My church group and I will be driving our off-white disheveled church bus down to the voting booths tomorrow, and along the way, picking up homeless men, transients, nomads and other people malleable enough to be influenced by fifty bucks, a crack rock or just the free cookies and juice provided to every voter. Over the last several months, we've spent every church service on Sunday and Wednesday scouring the King James bible for names that we can use to apply for absentee ballots. I can only hope our conviction was enough to keep the checks coming every month. Obama 2012 What were those names ACORN was using? Donald Duck and Chester Cheeto? | ||
|
Phailol
United States84 Posts
(The only reason I'm so heated about this is as stated in a previous post, I hate politics, all politicians are crooks. Name one that isn't in some way. Just one. And for the record, I do live in CA, so my vote is shit anyway) | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9164 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:53 Phailol wrote: Thank god I'm leaving this shit hole of a country as soon as I am able. I'm tired of the same bullshit politicians feed all the time and nearly every single monkey on this forum is gulliable(sp?) enough believe in their word. I can't wait until this whole system falls apart and the entire country goes into chaos, and all because of the idiot masses listening to big wigs looking like they know what they're talking about. (The only reason I'm so heated about this is as stated in a previous post, I hate politics, all politicians are crooks. Name one that isn't in some way. Just one. And for the record, I do live in CA, so my vote is shit anyway) I guess leaving the country entirely is radical enough of a political position to take, rofl. | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
On November 06 2012 04:18 docvoc wrote: This. A lot of people forget that other offices are up for voting, and these offices matter a lot more than the presidency for most. Though this is true that people forget about the other offices, I feel that almost none of the voters are informed enough to make such a decision. Almost nobody takes the time to research who they are going to vote for for people other than the president. Either that or they vote straight republican or straight democrat. Hell, I didn't know anybody I was voting for besides Obama and Romney. The only thing that made me change my mind about 1 judge was this guy standing outside the voting line telling us to vote for someone. He was a nice enough guy so I did vote for whomever he was praising, regardless of my not knowing anything about anyone. If your name happens to come first on the ballot, congrats - you have a significant advantage over your competitors. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:03 Epishade wrote: I voted last week against my will lol. My parents forced me to vote republican with them, even though I dislike both candidates. They didn't force you to vote Republican. You can vote for whoever you want once you're in the booth by yourself. It's not like your parents walked in and held your hand through the whole process. You could've voted for anyone on the ballot and they'd be none the wiser lol. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
So I consider the voting culture in the US quite good. I think it has a lot to do with a long history of democracy (mind you, we have had anything resembling a democracy only between 1918 to 1938 and from 1989 on - none of the elections between 1945 and 1989 were neither free nor fair). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18840 Posts
 | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 06 2012 09:26 Silentness wrote: I'd vote, but I already know that Romney will win Texas. I have nothing against Obama, but I don't want to get raped on capital gain taxes (Isn't he the one against it?) vote on your Congressional representative, your Senator, your city and county officials, and your school boards. people who vote only for federal elections should just not vote ever, even if they are in a swing state. | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
So long as young people (which is most of TL) continue our apathy towards voting, expect our politicians to continue ignoring us. I mean, even if they have proposals and initiatives that can help us out, it doesn't help them get elected, so why bother? I mean, look at how solidly entrenched Medicare is, compared to say, student loan programs. Old people vote, and politicians are careful not to fuck with them. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On November 06 2012 07:31 KING CHARLIE :D wrote: My church group and I will be driving our off-white disheveled church bus down to the voting booths tomorrow, and along the way, picking up homeless men, transients, nomads and other people malleable enough to be influenced by fifty bucks, a crack rock or just the free cookies and juice provided to every voter. Over the last several months, we've spent every church service on Sunday and Wednesday scouring the King James bible for names that we can use to apply for absentee ballots. I can only hope our conviction was enough to keep the checks coming every month. Obama 2012 LOL Charlie I can't vote, unfortunately. I've convinced both of my parents who and what to vote for, though. Ballot questions are tough. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
To me, it seems like, unless the preferences of the non-voting population differs significantly from those of the voting population, a sample size of 100m should be more than enough to get an accurate answer. Even if we assume that the non-voting population differs significantly from the voting population (a fairly big assumption), it still doesn't mean that it's a bad thing for them not to vote. In economics there's the idea that a free market allows the distribution of goods to consumers who place the highest value on those goods. Voting seems to be the same. Citizens who place the highest value on elections (and are thus the most likely to vote) get to have a greater say than those who don't value elections (and thus are unlikely to vote). As someone mentioned earlier, this should result in the more informed citizenry voting, ultimately resulting in better decisions being made. The only situation in which I can personally see the benefit of having the non-voters vote is if there is some systematic factor dissuading a specific population group from voting. For example, before Obama it was possible that a large number of black Americans believed that none of the presidents would support them, resulting in a significant portion of the population not being represented (this is just an example, I have no idea if it black Americans really felt this way). However, as with the systematic bias, this is a very big assumption to make without having strong evidence supporting it. It also won't be fixed by motivating the average American to go vote. So I guess my question remains: What is the benefit of non-voters voting, and why is it important to get these voters to vote? | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9164 Posts
On November 06 2012 09:48 Daigomi wrote: Just an ignorant question from an foreigner: What are the exact benefits of having the typical absentee voters vote? To me, it seems like, unless the preferences of the non-voting population differs significantly from those of the voting population, a sample size of 100m should be more than enough to get an accurate answer. Even if we assume that the non-voting population differs significantly from the voting population (a fairly big assumption), it still doesn't mean that it's a bad thing for them not to vote. In economics there's the idea that a free market allows the distribution of goods to consumers who place the highest value on those goods. Voting seems to be the same. Citizens who place the highest value on elections (and are thus the most likely to vote) get to have a greater say than those who don't value elections (and thus are unlikely to vote). As someone mentioned earlier, this should result in the more informed citizenry voting, ultimately resulting in better decisions being made. The only situation in which I can personally see the benefit of having the non-voters vote is if there is some systematic factor dissuading a specific population group from voting. For example, before Obama it was possible that a large number of black Americans believed that none of the presidents would support them, resulting in a significant portion of the population not being represented (this is just an example, I have no idea if it black Americans really felt this way). However, as with the systematic bias, this is a very big assumption to make without having strong evidence supporting it. It also won't be fixed by motivating the average American to go vote. So I guess my question remains: What is the benefit of non-voters voting, and why is it important to get these voters to vote? First you have to distinguish between absentee voting (which is voting by mail) and not voting. The greatest structural factor dissuading voting is the promotion in the political culture of the United States of keeping turnout low. It is to the advantage of the existing dominant political parties to attempt to reduce the turnout of supporters of the other side, as well as convince the large majority of people who don't vote to continue to do exactly that. The point is that there is a huge proportion of the voting-eligible population in this country who do not vote, and if they had voted, the results from elections could potentially be drastically different. They end up not voting because the 'market' of voting explicitly prices them out of participating in the economy on purpose. Looking at the current system, with a small minority of people deciding elections in this country, and saying it is indicative of a normal distribution or otherwise okay isn't the way to go, because low turnout is indicative of market failure. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 06 2012 10:13 itsjustatank wrote: First you have to distinguish between absentee voting (which is voting by mail) and not voting. The greatest structural factor dissuading voting is the promotion in the political culture of the United States of keeping turnout low. It is to the advantage of the existing dominant political parties to attempt to reduce the turnout of supporters of the other side, as well as convince the large majority of people who don't vote to continue to do exactly that. The point is that there is a huge proportion of the voting-eligible population in this country who do not vote, and if they had voted, the results from elections could potentially be drastically different. They end up not voting because the 'market' of voting explicitly prices them out of participating in the economy on purpose. Looking at the current system, with a small minority of people deciding elections in this country, and saying it is indicative of a normal distribution or otherwise okay isn't the way to go, because low turnout is indicative of market failure. huh? why are you discounting the fact that some of them may not vote because for some of them the vote is not important enough to waste time and money on? further, how is a "low" turnout indicative of a market failure? especially when the purpose of voting is not simply to fill out and cast a ballot, but to elect effective leaders. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9164 Posts
On November 06 2012 10:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: huh? why are you discounting the fact that some of them may not vote because for some of them the vote is not important enough to waste time and money on? further, how is a "low" turnout indicative of a market failure? especially when the purpose of voting is not simply to fill out and cast a ballot, but to elect effective leaders. Absentee voting renders your first point moot. Filling out a ballot by mail (or getting it early and turning it in early) 'wastes' no time at all, except for the effort of becoming educated. I would agree that things like declaring Election Day a federal holiday or requiring paid leave for people who want to go out and vote on that day would be useful in driving turnout if that is what you are getting at. Whether or not the leaders the minority picks are 'effective' can be left up for heated argument. I will say that allowing a minority to pick and leaving a sizable number of people out in the cold is not a fair way of electing leaders. In addition, because elections are more than just about who gets to be the next President of the United States, failing to exercise a sovereign vote in other offices and positions can affect a non-voter even more than if whoever wins the office of the Presidency isn't their first choice. | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On November 06 2012 08:25 overt wrote: They didn't force you to vote Republican. You can vote for whoever you want once you're in the booth by yourself. It's not like your parents walked in and held your hand through the whole process. You could've voted for anyone on the ballot and they'd be none the wiser lol. You can actually send in the ballot blank, if you want to. You don't have to vote for anyone. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 06 2012 10:29 itsjustatank wrote: Absentee voting renders your first point moot. Filling out a ballot by mail (or getting it early and turning it in early) 'wastes' no time at all, except for the effort of becoming educated. I would agree that things like declaring Election Day a federal holiday or requiring paid leave for people who want to go out and vote on that day would be useful in driving turnout if that is what you are getting at. Whether or not the leaders the minority picks are 'effective' can be left up for heated argument. I will say that allowing a minority to pick and leaving a sizable number of people out in the cold is not a fair way of electing leaders. In addition, because elections are more than just about who gets to be the next President of the United States, failing to exercise a sovereign vote in other offices and positions can affect a non-voter even more than if whoever wins the office of the Presidency isn't their first choice. filling out the ballot early wastes time, just not a lot of it. it also wastes effort becoming informed on political issues. one could argue that an uninformed vote counts as much as an informed one, but then I would counter with the assertion that uninformed votes are the enemy of democracy, not the friend. further, I am not interested in the slightest in driving turnout. in fact, I think a depressed turnout is probably the best that we can hope for (for a variety of reasons). whether or not the leaders that have been selected are effective is irrelevant to the fact that political representation is meaningless when it becomes the end in of itself. a democracy is not inherently better than a dictatorship. further, there is nothing stopping the majority from voting other than themselves, so your point about the fairness of our system is a straw-man. any system which guarantees the right to vote to the adult populace, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, economic status, gender, or political persuasion has already passed the standard of being "fair". and as a response to your third point, I will again ask why a greater number of voters would somehow lead to better leaders and officials on any level: local, state, or federal? unless you think that the mere fact of a vote being cast freely for one side is the primary goal of the democracy, then the turnout is largely irrelevant. | ||
| ||
