Why do people in the US vote? - Page 14

On March 02 2012 07:14 Aserrin wrote:

You're still looking at it the wrong way. Your views on democracy are completely broken. What you propose is a 'state-cracy' or something like that.

'oh no they will make campaign in the more populated areas disregarding the smaller states'.

So? Campaign doesn't make the people have more or less power, everyone has the right to vote and everyone has the right to have their vote have the same value as everyone else's.

Still, some votes count more than others. That isn't democracy, no matter how hard you try to work your words around it (bis). It isn't equality either. It's just half-assing things.

On March 02 2012 07:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:


Lol retards always win. Remember when [that president you hate] was elected?

On March 02 2012 07:28 NIJ wrote:

Because that president I hate beat that other candidate I hated.

On March 02 2012 07:29 mynameisgreat11 wrote:


I think we're back to the douche/turd argument.

On March 02 2012 07:34 iMAniaC wrote:
To all of you saying that you won't bother to vote because your one vote won't change a thing: Imagine this:

In 2012 you waste your vote on one of the "third" parties or independents, the ones who never get enough votes and never make a difference. And right you were, only about 1% of the votes was for someone else than Republicans or Democrats. So you wasted your vote, but you would've done that anyway by not voting, so it's no big deal.

However, you feel good about voting, so you set up a web page, telling people that "If you're not going to vote, if you're going to waste your vote, then waste it in protest! Vote for someone who is not of the two big parties!" and, somehow, you web page gets quiet a few number of hits. A zealous teenager comes along and really drives the "Vote in protest!" campaign forward.

In 2016, amazingly, the independents get 3% of the votes. Still utterly insignificant, but it's still an increase of 300% from four years before. Some newspaper mention the "Vote in protest!" campaign in passing and your web site explodes with traffic. Moreover, since you wouldn't have voted anyway, it didn't matter that you wasted your vote.

In 2020, the independents gain a whooping 7% of the votes, which is of course totally useless. A newspaper analyst says that this coincides with a roughly 6% increase in voter turnout over the last 8 years, meaning that these independent voters were not Democrat voters or Republican voters who were convinced otherwise, they were simply people who never voted who had begun to vote. You launch your new slogan: "Get off the couch and waste your vote differently!".

However, in 2021, a political party (let's call it The Opposition Party) picks up on the massive potential of the non-voters. They make it their one message: To vote in order to vote for someone else than the Republicans and Democrats. You, not wanting to pick any sides, still continue your "Waste your vote differently" campaign.

In 2024, The Opposition Party gets 6% of the votes and another 5% goes to independents. Although no one of them are above 10%, more than 10% of the votes actually went to someone else than the Republicans or Democrats.

In 2026, The Opposition Party get one Representative into the House of Representatives. It's the first time in a great many years that someone else than Republicans or Democrats were in the House of Representatives.

During the presidential elections in 2028, a talk show host makes the mistake to ask one of the candidates about his view on The Opposition Party, and the candidate makes the mistake of ridiculing it outright instead of scoffing it off. Having had the candidate talk about The Opposition Party for so long, people suddenly get the crazy idea that it's actually a feasible option. That year, The Oppostion Party gets 15% of the votes.

In 2032, The Opposition Party find themselves with a 16% representation in the House of Representatives. Suddenly, they have become a factor that the Republicans and Democrats have to make compromises with, in order to get their own policy through. In exchange, some of the Opposition Party's policies get through.

In 2032, The Oppostion Party finds itself a relevant factor in the issues leading up to the election. Its policies are actually being discussed by the other two parties. They get 18% of the votes.

After the vote for House of Representatives in 2034, The Opposition Party has one single policy that it refuses to back off of when negotiating policies with the Republicans and Democrats: A referendum for changing the voting system to better accompany a multi-party system. They have to make a lot of politically costly compromises, but the referendum is going to be held the next year.

In 2035, you walk down to the voting office to vote for a new voting system along with your wife and son. Your son's friends say that it's no use voting because one vote won't change a thing and you start to tell him about your web page and the rise of The Opposition Party and how that changed the two-party system that--
-"You had only two parties?", he asks?
-"Yeah, that's right, only two", you answer.
-"How did that work? Wouldn't the biggest one just decide everything?", he asks.
-"Well, …", you begin, but your son interrupts you.
-"And if they didn't agree one something, how did they do it if there wasn't any third party to do compromises with?", he adds.
And at that point you realize that your son has no clue about how things were in the early 2000's, simply because he wasn't born yet. And you feel old, very old, but you realize that something was changed and that your son will get to live in a country that is a little more like the one you wished you had lived in when you were young, and you feel that the world isn't such a bad place after all. Then the old slogan comes back to you: "Vote in protest!" and you chuckle a little. But then you stop chuckling, because at that point you realize that with the way things were going, you didn't really waste any votes. In fact, they were all a part of the change that happened during the last 25 years. And then you feel immensely glad that you voted back in 2012.


-- Or, you could sit at home and not vote because your one vote isn't going to change a thing anyway. A wasted vote is a wasted vote, however you look at it. You're not going to waste several hours of a day every 730 days voting, just on the off chance that it's actually going to make a difference sometime in the future. You have better things to do.

And in 2034, The Republicans win with 51% of the votes against the Democrats' 47%, with 2% going to the independents.

On March 02 2012 07:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:

in your system the votes of the larger states would, in practice, "count more" than those of the small states. i dont believe that is fair.

In the past few years, however, my reasons have changed a bit. Now I realize that I just have no faith in the electoral system. As much as I hate sounding like a long-boarding, clove-smoking,, hipster douche, I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything. Business moguls and celebrities become senators, governors, and president. Our laws, regulations, and taxes are thought up and created by people who are wealthy and powerful. They've proven time and time again that they're willing to use their position to advance their own ends.

And of course, lobbyists. Whatever company, group, or individual has the most money can trade that cash in for political influence. Oil companies wine, dine, and bribe for the rights to drill in previously protected environmental areas. Religions collect hundreds of billions annually, tax-free mind you, and then turn around and pump that money right back into congress to support bills that they find morally correct.

On March 02 2012 07:40 winter017 wrote:


This is because you aren't engaged in your local political processes that selects your representatives. Lobbyists etc may be able to wine and dine these people but ultimately we control whether or not they get wined or dined at all. You make it an acceptable practice when you don't participate

On March 02 2012 07:06 mynameisgreat11 wrote:


I don't think its baseless. If you're giving 50k to Obama, its because his policies coincide with yours, and you benefit from them. If his policies were contrary to what I wanted, wtf would I be doing giving him 50k?

On March 02 2012 05:18 zalz wrote:
Pathetic.

This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.

Que this generation.

I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.


This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.

We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.


Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.

I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:

You aren't not voting because you are so smart.
You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man.
You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.

You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.

You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.


And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.

The less you do, the smarter you feel.


Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.

The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.

But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.


Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.

George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?

On March 02 2012 07:25 Badjas wrote:
The media coverage and campaign money problem for third party candidates (or ron paul) could be solved by the internet and youth. If they'd get organized, young people that do believe in change (other than Obama's thing) could do an organized campaign with streamlined slogans, pretty flyers and soap box speeches. You only got one way to get out of the two party system and that is by raising awareness in the sheeple. Those who like to consume in mass, what is made for the mass. So you need mass.

My heart goes out to you guys.

On March 02 2012 07:44 stokes17 wrote:

Are really trying to say that donating money to someone you support is the same as buying influence? Get a clue

Once I give his people my check I'm done. I don't get to call Obama or talk to anyone in his administration over policy matters. By donating to a campaign I am not lobbying. If a lobbyist tried to gain influence that way, he would be broke and out of a job.

So for the last time, the vast majority of donations are under 200 dollars. Even 5 and 6 figure donations buy you absolutely 0 influence. Contributing to a campaign is really not at all the same as lobbying. And money is not the biggest issue with US politics

Grid locking lobbyist behavior and the 24 hour news cycle are the major issues.

To give an example of effective lobbying behavior, since you seriously don't get it:
Tax Free America (featured on the daily show this week in an awesome bit by samantha bee) is a Power Player in DC lobbying. They have so much power because they have convinced hundreds (not all still serving) congressmen/women to sign a pledge to not raise taxes. This 1 sheet of paper puts a congressperson in your pocket 100x more effectively than any amount of money you could donate to their campaign, because now if they do raise taxes you have a piece of paper making them a liar.

You tell me what's more effective- "Congressman X took 70K of my dollars at a fund raiser with 100 other people but then he didn't do what i asked him to when i shook his hand for 5 seconds. Congressman X lied to me" OR "Congressman X make an explicit pledge to the American People, a Pledge that over 300 congressman have made, and he is the first out of over 300 congressman to go back on HIS WORD to the American people. Congressman X is a bold faced liar who will say and sign whatever it takes to get into office."

Like I'm sorry, If you think private individuals who made large campaign contributions have any influence in national politics, you're wrong. And Corporations until citizens united (X__X) were extremely limited in how they could influence campaigns.