This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
USA voting day
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Pwntiff
valundar, I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand it's people like you that make this system as ineffective as it is.
A single vote out of three hundred million means jack. The problem is there is a larger emphasis on "You must vote!" than "You must know why you are voting the way you do." That mentality causes a lot of the inefficiencies we have when people turn up to vote when they don't know:
the issues
the candidates' campagins
at least the bare basics of the system
I can almost guarantee that President Bush's campaign of "I will ban same-same marriage" would not have held water if the majority of the population realized the federal government can't do that without infringing on states' rights, and yet that was a large part of his campaign.
I don't vote in my state's elections because either I'll agree with Republican's views and vote for the clear winner, or I'll agree with the Democrat's views and vote for the clear loser. In my state, at the gubernatorial level, my vote truly does not matter. I don't vote at the local level because in a town of four thousand, who you know is more important than what you say. Again, in my city elections, my vote truly does not matter because I would vote for the candidates who see they way I do on issues, but they aren't the ones going to be elected because that would involve changing the status quo.
Post by
Adamsm
You know, for some reason, this seems relevant.
Quotes from "The Perils of Polling"
Written by Jim Dauterive
Directed by Kyounghee Lim & Boohwan Lim
HANK: Did you send in those voter registration forms I gave you on your eighteenth birthday?
LUANNE: No, but that's okay -- I'll just vote for President next year.
HANK: I still get goose pimples thinking about pulling the lever for Councilman Fred Ebberd. 'Course, then he betrayed me.
TED: The polls and the media have been ignoring my campaign. But they're in for a surprise when longshot candidate Ted T. Gannaway moves out of his parents' basement and into the White House!
HANK: Look, a fringe candidate. Poor misguided bastard.
PEGGY: Well, you have to admire his courage. I mean, he's right in the middle of what I like to call Bush Country.
BARKER: Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the main event, the real deal, the finest diver with four legs, the pork Louganis, Mitch the Amazing Diving Pig! For his first dive, Mitch will present the Two-la Hula, a dive through not one, not three, but two hula hoops!
MAN: He's dead!
BOBBY: Not this pig. Not today.
CAMPAIGN WORKER: This is the sort of heroism the Governor loves to attach himself to.
LUANNE: I guess I cancel out your vote. My first election, and your vote means nothing. (Raising her arm in a Communist salute) Long live the people's revolution!
LUANNE: I have several reasons. The line to his booth was the shortest. I like his tie -- it's red. And his shirt is white, and his jacket is blue, and that stands for America -- Communism!
HANK: I just think if you don't read the papers and the only TV you watch is the MTV, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
LUANNE (as Sir Reginald): Cheerio. We were wondering if you would vote for Robert Parigi of the Communist Party U.S.A. for President, what what?
HANK: You don't know the first thing about Communism.
LUANNE: What's to know? Robert Parigi's got the cutest little eyes and the prettiest eyebrows. (as Sir Reginald) So can I tell Robert he can count on your vote?
HANK: No, you cannot! I hate Communists! All they do is boss people around!
LUANNE: Sounds like you, Uncle Hank.
HANK: Luanne, please go home before I tell you you're acting like an idiot and make you cry.
LUANNE (as Obadiah): Eee-yaa! You're a Communist! Eee-yaa!
HANK: No, I'm not!
LUANNE (as Sir Reginald): Welcome to the Party, mate!
HANK: Get that penguin back here! I'm not done!
LUANNE (as Obadiah): Eee-yaa! Power to the people, Comrade! (as Sir Reginald) I say, you look good in red, Comrade Hill!
HANK: All right, I gave you fair warning. Luanne, you're acting like an idiot.
LUANNE (crying): Oh, no! Oh, Uncle Hank!
LUANNE: He's even more handsome than his dad.
HANK: Well, Barbara's a handsome woman.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Hey, there's Heimlich County's newest hero!
BOBBY: I was just in the right place at the right time, like any hero.
HANK: Oh, my God! His handshake! It's limp!
HANK: This man could be the next leader of the free world. We're gonna have nutjob Third World dictators walking all over us when they find out the man in charge doesn't have a strong enough finger to push the button.
HANK: See that guy's reaction when Bush shakes his hand? Surprise, then disappointment. Surprise, then disappointment.
PEGGY: Sure, but when I want to watch Scent of a Woman, you don't even know how to work the VCR.
HANK: With voter turnout at all-time lows, not voting makes me more American.
DALE: We're going to stay in Mexico and see how the election turns out. In the event of any problems -- civil unrest, military coup -- we will remain in Mexico under assumed identities. You are Fritz Kruger, wealthy Ecuadorian rancher. And I am Central American singing sensation LaMotil.
LUANNE: This isn't Rudy, it's Luanne. And this isn't a propane emergency, it's a why-aren't-you-voting emergency. Why aren't you voting?
HANK: Because my candidate's handshake had no character.
LUANNE: What takes character is to vote anyway, even if it's rainy, or your face is blotchy, or your uncle made you cry, or your candidate's a dud. It doesn't take any character to give up.
HANK: What do you know about it? You've never even voted!
LUANNE: Well, maybe I won't vote after all, since apparently it's not that important. I think I'll go shopping, like you did, Uncle Hank. Because I don't need to vote, but I can always use a good pair of pants.
BILL: So who'd you vote for, Hank?
LUANNE: Nuh-uh. If he tells you, it won't come true.
Post by
valundar
Last night my candidates all won.
The local election was won by just over 100 votes out of 6000 total.
Only a fool can try and argue that voting doesn't matter.
And that's the truth.
Edit:
Need to Clarify... I am referring to local elections.
Post by
Adamsm
Voting doesn't; look at the Bush Gore election; lots of shenanigans going around for that one, with votes mysteriously disappearing. If people want to skew it, it's not that hard.
Post by
HiVolt
I am referring to local elections.
This is a point that I've already conceded earlier in the thread. Your point, no less.
Also:
Only a fool can try and argue that voting doesn't matter.
When arguing that voting in general doesn't matter, yes.
When arguing that voting in a flawed system doesn't matter, no.
Only a fool would call someone belonging to the latter classification a fool.
Post by
valundar
@ HiVolt
I will say it again...
Not voting is not a protest.
It is Apathy.
A rose by any other name...
wolfeyoung got it right:
Going to the polls and voting blank may show a sign of voter dissent.
want to protest.. that's the way to do it.
And as for the claim to not vote if you don't understand... well..
Not understanding why/who you are voting for makes you a moron.(please don't take this as calling you a moron as that is not my intent)
Ignorance is not an excuse when you break the law.
Nor is it when it comes to determining the course of your country.
That said... EVERYONE should go vote. This 20-60% voter turnout makes me want to puke. (just like the ignorance from many in this country makes me want to puke)
Edit:
Regardless of this vote.. dont vote.. blah blah. It is nice to see a non-monopoly in charge.
Monopolies do no-one any good.
Furthermore... upon closer reading of all your posts HiVolt.. i am starting to believe that our views are not that different. Its just not coming across correctly.
Post by
Pwntiff
Again, voting for the sake of voting is no worse than not voting at all; this includes party voters.
Another way to look at it: When is the last time a major policy shift occurred based solely on a change of administration? This should not include external stimuli like foreign attacks or crises that would likely have happened regardless of the man in office.
In this country, there is a status quo that's been more or less maintained regardless of the party in control. Instead of railing against the apathetic non-voters, why not address the issue behind the apathy? No matter who wins, a large majority of people are going to be more or less unaffected.
Post by
Adamsm
wolfeyoung got it right:
Going to the polls and voting blank may show a sign of voter dissent.
want to protest.. that's the way to do it.
Lol, not really; any and all blank votes are just thrown away, same as ones that have multiple names checked off, write in candidates and all the rest. They don't keep track of those types, so it would be a futile way to protest.
Post by
HiVolt
@ HiVolt
I will say it again...
Not voting is not a protest.
Another point I've already conceded earlier in the thread.
Non-voting by itself is not protest.
However, I would not be so quick to call every instance of non-voting apathy. An inaction can only be classified as apathy if it is motivated by apathy. In my case, it is clearly not motivated by apathy. Do you honestly think that I'd still be sitting here making these arguments if I were apathetic to the situation? No. I wouldn't have even given the thread a second look, were I apathetic.
I'm not claiming to speak for the motives of every non-voter. I can only speak for myself. I am not- I REPEAT- I am not motivated by apathy, therefore, my non-vote is not apathy. The act by itself may not be protest, but it is also not inherently apathy.
Also:
Not understanding why/who you are voting for makes you a moron.
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. :D
Post by
Pwntiff
The local election was won by just over 100 votes out of 6000 total.
Which office? How many serious candidates? Metro, rural, suburb?
Former Knoxville, TN, mayor Bill Haslam won the states gubernatorial election with 66% of the vote. The only real question as to who would win the election was settled in the primaries when he beat Representative Zach Wamp for the Republican nomination.
My district's US representative wasn't on the ballot; my district's state senator wasn't on the ballot; my district's state representative won 12,000 votes to 3,000 votes. All of my city and county elections were held in August. TN Senator Lamar Alexander isn't up for re-election until 2014, and Senator Bob Corker isn't up for re-election until 2012. I don't vote because like I said, I'm either voting for the clear winner or the clear loser, such is life in the Bible Belt.
Post by
wolfeyoung
wolfeyoung got it right:
Going to the polls and voting blank may show a sign of voter dissent.
want to protest.. that's the way to do it.
Lol, not really; any and all blank votes are just thrown away, same as ones that have multiple names checked off, write in candidates and all the rest. They don't keep track of those types, so it would be a futile way to protest.
If all you read of my original post was that quote, then yes, you're right. However, that wasn't all I said. What I said was when you go to vote in America, you must sign in first to let them know you're here to vote. They then mark down that Mr. Wolfeyoung came to vote. Now, if you then vote blank and many, many people follow, then what happens is this: 200 mil came to vote, but only 150 mil votes were registered. I said that doing that
may
show a sign of voter dissent.
Simply not showing up to vote will mean nothing. But showing up and then choosing not to vote
could
send a message to Washington. Not certain if the message would be clear.
And I'm talking hypothetically. I don't think that it'll be an easy action to get 50 mil to show up and not vote. But if you could, then....
Post by
Adamsm
And I'm talking hypothetically. I don't think that it'll be an easy action to get 50 mil to show up and not vote. But if you could, then....Then all that would be needed was for one person to vote while the others 'throw' away the vote; they would record your name, but again, blank vote = trash in most 'serious' elections.
Post by
MyTie
An uneducated vote? People voting strictly along party lines? We needn't look farther than the South Carolina senate race, where Alvin Greene won 27% of votes. Sure, he lost, but think about it... 27% of South Carolina voters marked him on the ballot. That means a little over a quarter of the voters are either idiots, uniformed, or voting for him based on his race. What does that say about the electoral process? What does that say about the electorate? Are we a society slowly filling up with imbiciles?
Post by
Adamsm
Are we a society slowly filling up with imbiciles?Part of human nature unfortunately.
Post by
HiVolt
Are we a society slowly filling up with imbiciles?
As much my idealist side would like to say no to this- my realist side doesn't allow it. High school and college dropout rates are growing across the board. The curriculum of our public schools isn't up to global standards. We have people trying to push an idea into science classes that isn't based on science. There are still people who believe the Holocaust didn't happen. There are people who don't believe that humans have ever landed on the moon. There are people who believe that humans couldn't have possibly built the pyramids...
The list goes on and on...
But, to your original summation of the voters who voted for the losing candidate in South Carolina as idiots, uninformed, or voting based on race- it's just not true. Sure, some of them probably definitely fall into that category, but it's likely that just as many, or perhaps even more voted for the winner.
Post by
MyTie
But, to your original summation of the voters who voted for the losing candidate in South Carolina as idiots, uninformed, or voting based on race- it's just not true. Sure, some of them might have fallen into that category, but it's likely that just as many, or perhaps even more voted for the winner.
I agree that 27% of the voters for DeMint could have been equally as uniformed, idiotic, or racist as the 27% that voted for Greene. I don't see how this means the 27% that did vote for Greene are any less so.
Post by
HiVolt
But, to your original summation of the voters who voted for the losing candidate in South Carolina as idiots, uninformed, or voting based on race- it's just not true. Sure, some of them might have fallen into that category, but it's likely that just as many, or perhaps even more voted for the winner.
I agree that 27% of the voters for DeMint could have been equally as uniformed, idiotic, or racist as the 27% that voted for Greene. I don't see how this means the 27% that did vote for Greene are any less so.
I never said they were any less so. I only claim that more of the uninformed had voted for the winner due to the winner having more votes. The as the number of votes increases- the likelihood of a portion of those votes being made in an uninformed way increases as well.
Post by
MyTie
But, to your original summation of the voters who voted for the losing candidate in South Carolina as idiots, uninformed, or voting based on race- it's just not true. Sure, some of them might have fallen into that category, but it's likely that just as many, or perhaps even more voted for the winner.
I agree that 27% of the voters for DeMint could have been equally as uniformed, idiotic, or racist as the 27% that voted for Greene. I don't see how this means the 27% that did vote for Greene are any less so.
I never said they were any less so. I only claim that more of the uninformed had voted for the winner due to the winner having more votes. The as the number of votes increases- the likelihood of a portion of those votes being made in an uninformed way increases as well.
I disagree. I think you might be missing the point here. Go watch a few of Alvin Greene's interviews, then explain how voting for the opposing candidate was uniformed.
Post by
HiVolt
I disagree. I think you might be missing the point here. Go watch a few of Alvin Greene's interviews, then explain how voting for the opposing candidate was uniformed.
I don't have to watch any interview to know that many people vote while not being informed of who or what they are voting for. It doesn't matter the candidate or the issue- there are always people who make uninformed votes. The more votes that a candidate gets- the greater likelihood there is of a portion of those votes being made in an uninformed way simply because more people vote for that candidate.
Post by
MyTie
I don't have to watch any interview to know that many people vote while not being informed of who or what they are voting for. It doesn't matter the candidate or the issue- there are always people who make uninformed votes. The more votes that a candidate gets- the greater likelihood there is of a portion of those votes being made in an uninformed way simply because more people vote for that candidate.I agree with you completely, however, I'm asking about this:
But, to your original summation of the voters who voted for the losing candidate in South Carolina as idiots, uninformed, or voting based on race- it's just not trueVoting for Alvin Greene would be the equivilant of voting for a rubber spatula. He is literally THAT stupid. I didn't make the claim because he was the losing candidate. I made the claim because he is an imbicile. Anyone who votes for him either has no idea why he voted for him, voted for him because they like his race, or voted for him because they actually like people with the IQ of a rubber spatula.
HiVolt... I like ya, and I wanna be patient with you, but explain how my assertion here is wrong. Explaining how people who voted for the other side are stupid does little to reverse the claim that the 27% of voters who voted for Greene are idiots.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.