Slashdot Mirror
Did You VoteOrNot.org?
WhiskerBiscuit writes "The boys at Am I Hot or Not have started a sweepstakes to encourage people to register to vote. According to this blogger's analysis, the contest should encourage disempowered people to register (subject to the constraint that poor people don't have computers). The organizers have cleverly split the prize between a lucky winner and whoever happens to have referred them, providing a selection advantage for viral dispersal of the meme."
We ran a sweepstakes at tech-recipes.com not too long ago. The prizes were gift certificates to Amazon, t-shirts, etc. I was amazed how much traffic it brought in.
These sweepstakes sites must just have tons and tons of traffic because they turfed a lot our way. If you promoting a new site, I suggest it highly.
The problem with viral campaigns like VoteOrNot is that it is too easy to have multiple on-line personalities. In these days, nobody has one email account... it's easy for one person to be a ton of people online. That's the problem the company will have.
The problem the rest of us will have is these techniques will likely flood every forum in the world with referrals... much like the free iPod, LCD, hummer, hooker, etc. campaigns have.
In case you're wondering why they're doing this.
Right is wrong when left is right.
By actually giving them a candidate they can agree with?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Shortly after turning 18 I registered to vote
By voting, I can bitch and moan about politics all I want, because I'm actively trying to change it with my little bit of power
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Are people too poor to own computers allowed to vote??? I'm really not sure they should be.
Voter registration is web available in my county... it's amazing how few people on my street are even registered!
Vote republican. Vote democrat. Vote anything, just vote!
Agile Artisans
I've got "politics" selected as one not to put on "my homepage", I'm logged in, and yet here this story is.
Anyone else seeing this?
The Army reading list
Now if you do vote, than by all means, bitch and complain. Ever wonder why younger people always get shafted by congress and the elderly wield lots of power? One reason, and one reason only for this, young people don't vote and elderly people do.
500 some votes put W in power, (never mind contested stuff), so dont ever think your vote doesn't count.
do they select you for jury duty using voter registration records? everyone i have ever talked to who has been selected for jury duty has been registered to vote... is this a coincidence?
to spend time and effort trying to increase awareness of local/state/federal issues -- an INFORMED voter is much more important than getting someone who is too apathetic to even register to vote to get up off his/her arse and actually VOTE. An uninformed vote is as bad (arguably worse) than just flipping a coin.
"Disempowered" indeed. It takes virtually no time to register and virtually no time to apply for and fill out an absentee ballot. Voting is easy and cost free (other than the effort it takes to take pen to paper).
Not long ago, we had a federal election in Canada, and this was a focus of some of the candidates, especially getting younger voters out. However, the discussion centered around voting and spoiling your ballot. I'm of the opinion that it is better to show up and spoil your ballot than not vote at all. I don't always vote for someone because often, its a case of "lesser of the evils" and I don't want to support any of them. However, I believe that spoiling my ballot may show the politicians that people are not happy with the choices available to them.
ND is the only state that does not have voter registration.
In a nutshell, we're doing this because we care, and because we can. We also like the idea of doing this because nobody else has done it before, and we like to do crazy, new things.
Plenty of institutions (MTV and the Republicans immediately come to mind) have done what they can to get people out to vote. I suppose in this day and age we basically have to coerce people into signing up to vote (which is exactly what the Hot or Not guys are doing).
My question is why do we have to coerce people to vote? Is it because popular opinion doesn't matter? Is it because of possible cheating at the polls? Is it because people just don't give a fuck?
Personally I believe it to be a mix of quite a few factors but I lean quite a bit towards not giving a fuck and it not mattering.
Perhaps part of the standardized testing that GWB has mandated should include more emphasis on Civic Duty? Perhaps they should better explain why it is important to vote even though we have a broken/antequated system that is unnecessary in this day and age. Fuck, perhaps we should just eliminate the entire Election system as it is and reinstate it as an episode of Survivor or American Idol.
Text message your votes now! Standard SMS rates apply!
This is a terrible idea, for the same reason the Motor Voter Bill was. Get a bunch of people registered who were otherwise too lazy to do so, when it's illegal to ask for ID at the polls, and not even required for absentee ballots? Great. Just what we need. More ballots floating around for people who can't be bothered to sign up to vote. I'm sure they'll keep track of their ballots and not let other people steal them because they might WIN FREE STUFF.
Vote early, vote often.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
...has come out of the several vehement campaigns to get Bush out of office: Lots of pushes to get people to register and vote. The average voter turnout in the USA is abysmal, so here's hoping some of these efforts succeed.
Viral distribution, eh? I wonder how long it'll be before one of the recent e-mail worms is rewritten to send out referral links to this thing.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
much like the free ...hooker
I need this URL...for a friend.
Kinda sums up my beliefs
no god is good
Well, it's a sad commentary on our society when we have to offer people money just to register to vote. Why aren't we all registered automatically when we turn 18? Whether you vote or not is up to you, but at least the excuse of not being registered would be gone.
TellAnAmericanToVote.com has everything you need to register your choice from outside the USA. More than ever, the whole world has to pay the price if the neocons keep in power. This election is too important to let Diebold and Jeb decide it for you.
In Greece the voting is mandatory. The one who doesn't fulfill her social obligation to be responsible is fined. Greece is the oldest democracy.
Vote Cthulhu! Why settle for the lesser of two evils?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
that the first "Politics" article is from Michael?
Don't say I didn't warn you.
Be aware you are entered onto a mailing list which you can opt out of without effecting your entry. Instructions provided after entering.
If I win $10k will be donated to Slashdot's favorite charity.
Terms & Conditions
'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
Over here in California, it's illegal to offer an inducement to vote.
Join the window installer's union, where prosperity is a brick throw away!
the whatwhat?
In Wisconsin, AFAIK, most polling places allow you to register at the polls the day of the election, usually just requiring two items as proof of residency.
However, I don't think that you receive any proof of registration. I wonder what happens in this case?
I am MuchTall
Be very careful to obey the law in NC.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
It's not in your interest to vote, at least not from a game theory perspective. Voting takes effort, and the benefit you recieve directly from your act of voting is insignificantly small comparatively. If you want to say "but what if everybody didn't vote?", hit wikipedia for some game theory background first...
(and before you mod me down for discouraging voting...i vote and don't expect anyone not to based on this argument....but I'd just like to see a good countering argument)
Hmmmm, this whole registar to vote thing seems stronger then ever. Seems like the libreals are depending on people who generally don't vote to turn the tide.
What they should have done was offer Free iPods or FlatScreen TV's... Then they'd have it spammed all over Slashdot and the rest of the world! =)
Right is wrong when left is right.
I'm one of the people who has been registered since 18 y/o, and voted in every election.
Do I get a f*cking prize?
Personally I think if you have not voted in the past 3-4 elections you should begin to lose your rights as a citizen of the United States. The Constitution is based largely on the "Social Contract" I think that if one party (The voter) is not fulfilling their duties in the contract, the other party (the govt) should be exempt. Essentially what I am saying is that if you haven't voted in the last 12 years you should have your welfare cut off your fire/police coverage taken away and you should be sent to another country where the government no longer protects your borders. Hell I don't think you should even be required to pay taxes. If you don't vote, you should be banished from this country.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
I've always thought registering to vote is silly. In order for a democracy to work, you need as many as possible to vote, so requiring them to register first is inconvenient (and we all want convenience).
Here in Denmark, every person over 18 is sent a card and a place/time to vote. No registration. The result is that 80+% actually vote...
Yeah ok, so we are a small (5.3 million) country so it's easier to manage here. Still makes it a much better way.
I'm beginning to really hate that word. It seems that everybody who is on the losing side of an issue, or who bears some other grudge against society, thinks of himself as "disempowered."
Whether it's the primary or November election, it's best to read up on the issues and all the candidates. Too many people simply pick a party and vote based on that. You really have no idea what the candidate stands for until you read the voter's pamphlet.
You should have posted a referal link in your slashdot artical. That would vastly improve your chances of getting the $100 k
Interesting site. But the stuff about not being taxed is bullshit. I know one person who had never lived in the US but has US citizenship who got audited by the IRS right after the 2000 election. How else would the IRS know of this person and where to find this person?
It's also the case in Belgium. However, those who don't go to vote are not, in most cases, fined. But there is always the possibility ... of being fined and a lot of people prefer avoid it especially as voting is not a terrible task !
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
Perhaps...or it could just be that many many kids don't bother, and that's not good for the voting system. At my high school, most of the seniors don't care about voting at all. There's only a few who are registered, or plan to.
And, don't be so quick to smash (if you aren't, I'm sorry, but it sort of seems like you have a negative tone). As many people who can vote should vote. Just because liberals groups (I'm not entirely sure if this is true, since I haven't seen any linking between these groups) are pushing this doesn't mean they're relying on people who don't vote. Couldn't the tables be turned by saying conservative parties aren't pushing people to vote because right now they've got enough people to vote for them, but they sure don't want any more new voters that could rock the vote? Just a thought.
I don't think these things should be associated with one side or the other. This website (and other register-to-vote things) aren't pushing their own candidates, so I see no reason they should be affiliated with one group. I'm not trolling, I just think someone should point this out.
He's saying this in a very confrontational way, but I agree. The only way to affect change is through action. People who fail to act in any way other than "voting" are just sheep, lining up to get sheared once more.
This is a great way to encourage people to take advantage of the democracy we have been blessed with (and most American's don't take advantage of). I think it's fair to say just about every american has some beef with the government - but if you don't vote you can't change that. So register to vote, do your homework, and get to the polls!!!
Slightly off topic, but a group has created a site to allow the world to vote in the US presidential election, unoffically of course. The site is http://www.us-election.org/.
It's illegal to offer any sort of incentive to someone just for registering to vote. The City Pages (Village Voice) here in Minnesota is in trouble for registering people and signing them up to win a prize.
God, will you quit posting your shit in these politcal threads? wtf!
I don't vote, and I feel completely justified in complaining about the result.
:)
The result comes from lack of options.
There are no politicians who I feel represent me. Not even who I feel represent 50% of what's important to me, for that matter.
So it doesn't matter which politician wins...the end result will be the same (from my perspective).
Aside from that, I am politically active. I tell my congressman what I want them to do (they claim they value the feedback, though the never act upon it EVER).
I also give money to lobbies which DO represent me. Lobbies are much more effective a political tool than voting, and require more effort and sacrifice on the part of the contributor...as such, it makes me feel MORE justified in complaining about the various candidates and platforms which my favorite lobbies oppose.
The only party I've heard say anything directly on the subject is an official in the Republican Party (though I'm sure both parties are working hard to work on voters). According to the gentleman, they have people standing out saying "Are you Republican or undecided?" If the person says that they're something else, they thank them and send them on their way, and if they say "Republican" or "undecided", they ask them if they'd like a voter registration card.
May we never see th
I've said this before, so I'll make my point quickly: I think it is a very bad idea to blindly encourage people to vote. PSA's that preach, "I don't care how you vote, just so long as you do" are dangerous. The truth is, not everybody is equipped to vote. The majority of people don't vote, because the majority of poeple don't have a clue what the candidates platforms are. People don't take the time to get informed. They hear a little newsbyte here, or some rumour in the coffee room there, then go and pick the guy who looks nicer.
My point is, when you encourage ignorant, apathetic people to vote, you're canceling out the votes of those who actually bothered to research the issues and make an informed decision. Voting is far too important to be left to the ignorant, apathetic, sub-100-IQ TV-addicted beer-chuggers.
Just my opinion.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
That seemed like a pretty lame excuse then, and it still does. Is there any truth to being a new voter and not being allowed to vote, or did I get disenfranchised?
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
The more people you get to enter, the HIGHER (not lower) your chances of winning $100,000.
Actually, this is might not be the case. Say, for example, there are 5 people currently entered (of which I am one). My odds are 1/5. I then refer 5 friends. My odds are now 6/10. Those 5 friends each refer 5 other friends. Now my odds are 6/35 (17%), which is lower than the original 1/5 (20%).
This case occurs when the number of "second level (and greater)" referals (refered by those I refered and so on) is significant comprared to the total number of entries.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
One of the first things I did when I moved for college is register to vote, as I think it's an important civic duty. However, I won't be signing up for this sweepstakes, because I feel it cheapens the entire point. One should not be registering for the opportunity to win some free money! I think the money would be better spent in attempting to educate people on why they should WANT to register to vote, and take the time to become EDUCATED voters.
I no longer live in the States.
That means that if I want to vote, then it counts towards the state in which I last lived... in my case Massachusetts. MA has been democrat for presidential elections for a long time, so I'm not exactly thinking my vote is going to mean much.
That and I am in fact aware of how the electoral college works, so it really doesn't matter if I add one more vote to MA.
I told this to a friend and they were aghast, after talking with him more, he clearly didn't get the electoral college - even after the last election.
Brilliant.
So even if I did think my vote mattered at all, it still goes all over for me.
I don't like Bush. I am embarrassed for America every time I see him on TV since he doesn't speak well and his actions make America look like a bunch of warmongering retards.
But I don't really like Kerry either. Kerry moves that much closer to socialism with increased Nationalistic moves towards our boundaries with jobs and trade, increased taxes, and far too many government spending programs that we just don't need.
I might be inclined to see his side of things were I actually living in the country - or in fact ever planning on moving back... but I'm not.
So I get to pay his higher taxes, so that the people of America can have whatever services he is claiming they will have - but I get none of it.
Perfect.
So then I look at Bush and he will keep increasing the $80K limit before I have to pay US taxes while living overseas, so at least I have that. He is going to be better to the insurance and offshore industry, which is better for me where I currently live and the way I make my money.
But then I also have to see the way he is an idiot about science, his religious overtones freak me out on any number of points, and his stance on foreign diplomacy is clearly poor at best.
In the end - I am not registered to vote, and I won't be voting. Both because in the situation I am in, it doesn't matter - but also because even if I did have to make a decision, I am fucked either way.
As for the greater good of the country, again it is out of my hands, and I also don't particularly care since I no longer live there.
So this whole election, while interesting to watch - is largely something I observe with a detached ambivalence at best.
I feel kind of bad, but then... not all that bad since my political/religious views are more along the lines of Rand's objectivism then they are D/R or anything else.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
I've put my name on the ballot three times already. Even just being the 3rd option in the general election without doing anything else is challenging people to stop and consider if they really want another Republican or Democrat in office. So far, I've managed 3.5% each time, though I'm hoping for a better showing this year. (I actually spent some money on signs!)
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
So, if all but one of my views aren't represented by any of the candidates, then I should vote for the candidate who represents that one view?
Brilliant.
Give us geeks a choice between voting and women, and there can only be one result...
How about we let felons vote first?
Never have I heard of a more extraordinary law being made, and one severely violating the spirit of our Constitution, than laws preventing felons from voting while they are serving their sentence -- it's *easier* to locate felons for voting day than anyone else. Futhermore, a few states even prevent convicted felons from voting *after* they get out of jail.
Here's some discussion. Disallowing felons from voting is really primarily a Republican tool (since felons vote overwhelmingly Democrat). Isn't it a wonderful system? (Elected) Legislators get to decide what constitutes a felony, and then prevent people who violate laws that they pass from voting in future elections.
May we never see th
So I was trying to be quick and funny and the result was getting "trolled". To bad there isn't a "Greedy" or "Unfunny" modifier.
l ection/
I might as well and take this change to post what I really feel about this election and voting.
I hope this sweepstakes does promote people to make sure they are currently correctly registered and results in more people voting. I had moved before the last election and did not register and thus missed out on voting. And then I move again about 18 months ago, and it wasn't until this summer that I actually registered here at my new place.
And then this morning I realized that come November I am going to be out of state at the Macromedia MAX conference and I thought to myself "hey I need to looking into how to absentee vote". And low and behold Macromedia dedicated a page to links for every state on how to absentee vote.
http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/events/max/e
I have since contacted my County Clerk and will be receiving my absentee ballot. It took my all of 5 minutes.
I personally am sick of 3rd party organizations like punkvoter.org trying to promote getting people to vote, but really they are just trying to get people to vote their way. I am glad that VOTEorNOT.org is not pushing an agenda, but just trying to get people to vote in general.
Use me =) I didn't have a referrer when I signed up, and I wasted a chance for someone. You won't decrease your chances of winning, you only increase my chances of sharing it with you... so to sweeten it for you, I'll give you an extra $5k if you win and I'm your referrer =)
So, yes, I'm a greedy whore, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. =) So let's split $200,000
Now go sign up and tell your friends! We're getting infinite odds on the best contest ever! Sign people up to register to vote if you have to, but you can't go wrong with this contest!
cheers,
schlach
i think this is illegal.
. ht mlm
here in minnesota there was recently a controversy about something similar. it seems there is a federal law prohibiting payment in exchange for votes OR for voter registration. even if its just a candy bar.
http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_244093451
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/mnmain.ht
You are now free to complain about how this person performs his job.
By voting you can also FIRE someone who is not doing their job to your satisfaction
By not voting either way, you are in effect saying I don't care who does the job
If you don't care who is hired to do the job, then you deserve what you get, and therefore you CAN complain.. (at least until the wrong person you didn't vote for takes away your rights to complain)
But it is not a God given right, it is a constitutional right.
regards
dbcad7
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
More independent voters are better, on average, even if they're not very good decision makers.
Consider a situation where a voter makes a choice, A or B. We'll assert that one choice is correct. Say each voter has a 60% chance of choosing right.
Now consider three voters, x, y, z.
Sum up the probabilities of the correct choices. Notice that they add up to 0.648, which exceeds 0.6.
More independent voters will, on average, make better decisions.
Independence is necessary. If voters can influence each other (via ads or arguments on strange websites), this falls apart.
More leftist swill from the geeks at Slashdot. Anyone who hasn't got the gumption to go vote on their own I DON'T WANT VOTING!
This isn't a popularity contest, it's important. I'd rather the lame morons stayed home.
Thanks for trying though.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
i agree with those who think this is a bad idea. The problem with voteornot.com, if directed at the indigent and indifferent demographic, is that its target audience more likely than not lacks the means or ability to register for this raffle. I'm skeptical that the target will 1) own a computer, 2) have internet access, 3) be able to find out about this raffle. And if conditions 1, 2, and 3 do happen to be satisfied, that person will likely be aware enough to already intend to vote in the first place.
more on drjuris.blogspot.com
In the upcoming election, I will be old enough to vote, but I will not. My reasoning is not because of apathy or because I am trying to make some sort of political statement. Instead, my reason is very pragmatic: my vote does not matter. My vote will not change the outcome of the election. Not even by a little bit.
It is almost certain that the election will not be decided by one vote. In some states, the election may be remarkably close. Maybe it will even be in the vicinity of several hundred people. However, unless the difference comes down to exactly one vote, my vote will not change anything. An election has no gray area. Since the election will not be affected by my one vote, I will not bother casting it.
Many people give me a hard time about my decision, giving me all sorts of rhetoric about how my ancestors died to give me the opportunity to vote, I have no right no complain if I don't vote, etc. They say it is my duty to vote and that if everyone thought like me, no one would vote. However, the fact remains that my vote has virtually no chance of changing anything. The reason I will not vote is for practical reasons rather than ideological. If no one voted, then my vote would start to have some meaning and I would of course use it.
The main problem with not voting as a political statement is that there is absolutely nothing to distinguish between someone who doesn't vote because he hates the candidates and someone who doesn't vote because he hates moving.
You should vote, even if all you do is vote for some local school board official. Or write in Donald Duck. Anything to get a ballot in. If 15% of the presidential vote went to people outside the two parties, they'd sit up and take notice.
Otherwise they just write you off as apathetical.
Fellowship 9/11
I'm a big fan of people staying home on election day.
(I'll give you a moment to recover from shock and righteous indignation.)
Voting is a right, yes. And I believe that every informed citizen should do it. Along the same line, I believe that as a citizen it is your duty and obligation to *get informed.*
But if you're not going to understand the issues, stay away from the polls. We're at war, the Supreme Court is probably at stake (although admittedly we hear that every election), the economy is on an uncertain path, social security needs major reformation, millions lack healthcare, the world is packed with torture, famine, genocide, and slavery... and you're too busy to register until a low-rent web site of solopsistic kids in need of public vanity validation encourages you??
You're probably one of those people we don't need pulling a lever.
Contrary to contemporary platitudes, not everyone's opinion is important. If you're too lazy to understand why we're at war and formulate a rationale for supporting or opposing it, your vote is detrimental to society.
The same people who lament the "soundbite" nature of modern politics also cheer on these "be cool and vote!" drives, without realizing that we have a soundbite society BECAUSE of these drives!
Want substantive politicians? Get substantive voters.
Pomme de Terre!
The City Pages here in Minneapolis was doing a promotion trying to encourage people to vote. They were giving away a free trip. The local paper ran a story about how this type of thing was illegal.....
m l
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4956543.ht
From that article...
""I Will Vote" promotion may run afoul of federal law that prohibits paying or accepting payment for voting or registering to vote.
"The law has been interpreted liberally so that 'payment' is construed to mean anything of value (even a candy bar or a cigarette -- something much less valuable than a trip to Iceland)," Kiffmeyer wrote."
ROFL until I drop a WTF BOMB on U! OMG!
If you show up to vote with a bill or a statement from someone, as long as it has your name and address, you can register and vote at the same time. Oh... you need to have been a resident in Minnesota for 30 days.
Get this: Even if you don't have anything with your name and address, you can have a friend vouch for you and you're registered, and can vote right there at the polling place.
This is a union thug's dream! They can drive around, vouch for each other at every polling place in which they have a member, and really get their candidate elected.
Oh, once you vote, you are registered, and you never need to worry about registering ever again. That's it. It doesn't get any easier than that.
I just don't get why registering is such a big deal. Registering to vote isn't that complex. Why all the attention? Is the rest of the US that bass-ackwards? Is there some reason why people can't register to vote? Is it like donating blood? Do you have to go jump through hoops to register? Why all the fuss?
-- No sig for you!
Dont give me that garbage that poor people cant get online.. They can get online as easily as they can waste their vote on the wrong party.
1/2 the time they get funded via tax dollars to go get a computer + internet.. While *I* have to pay for mine.. ( and theirs via my taxes ).
They also can goto the damned library, in this day and age few are not online... often via MY tax dollars..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Or if you don't think voting matters at all, you can Fuck the Vote.
In Canada, voter enumerators come to your door to register you months before an election, both Provincial and Federal (although there was no enumeration before our last Federal election).
If you miss the door to door enumneration you can still register to vote on election day at your polling place, even if your homeless, as long you show proper ID or have someone familiar with you swear an affidavit of your identity.
Another thing I find odd is disenfranchinsing prior felons. Some states prohibit people from voting if they were previously incarcerated. Not only is that odd, but downright anti-democratic in my opinion. This would most certainly be unconstitional in Canada considering that persons in prison won the right to vote around a year ago, after Parliament specificly tried to legislate otherwise and it went to the Supreme Court.
There really is no excuse not to vote.
http://html.themilwaukeechannel.com/sh/election200 0/stories/election2000-20001105-222208.html t m
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a35afc35a3e.h
What's really relevant here is that Wisconsin went to Gore by only 5700 votes. Wisconsin could have just as easily been implicated in the same mess as the Florida votes debate.
I am MuchTall
Jim and James are giving away $100K each? Holy Crap, how much is HotorNot bringing in? And yeah, I (kinda) know about the marketing value of this, but it still means they have a $200K marketing budget for HotorNot.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
One complaint I hear from people who don't vote is, "I can't take the time off work." Though polls in the U.S. are generally open from 7AM to 7PM local time, I can see how this still might be a problem for people working long shifts and/or who have children that need to be looked after. And rarely is a 30 minute lunch break long enough to drive to your polling place, wait in line, vote, and drive back.
It would be neat if there were some way for people who have free time and flexible schedules to sub for people who want to vote but can't get free. A sort of job exchange to get out the vote.
Or, perhaps, it would be nice if employers would sign a pledge promising not to fire workers who needed to take an extra long lunch break on election day as long as they came back with the "I Voted" sticker.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
Dude, I can't believe you spammed the topic with your referral hyperlinked.
Are you hoping that nobody noticed? If that's the case, then I don't think a 3 line hyperlink in which the location has "KEVIN S. Will be credited for referring you" written in big red letters is the most subtle way to do it.
Insert bash.org quote about stabbing people in the face over the internet here. To be fair, I don't really want you to die, maybe I could stab you in the face with a banana or somesuch.
Without a way to check "the system" if MY vote was counted, how are we to know our vote REALLY was applied? The e-voting machines and systems could allow voters to go online, enter in a unique ID from any computer/phone/pda browser and see that THIER vote is in the system and was counted. Will it happen? I doubt it. They would rather have a system where you are left to trust those running the show.
I will tell you now, if THIS election is decided by the judicial process too, it might be the time to purchase some form of protection for your family and home... IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Senator Foghorn Leghorn, that's a good one!
Program Intellivision!
It's not in your interest to vote, at least not from a game theory perspective. Voting takes effort, and the benefit you recieve directly from your act of voting is insignificantly small comparatively.
This is a judgement call, I'd say. I don't think that you can actually quantify the loss due to effort involved here and say whether it's higher or lower than the benefit. At least not in the general case, as the amount of effort needed is going to vary among different people, as is the quantitative impact of your vote, which varies depending on location and the relevant laws in your state and so forth.
Now, most places do use voter registrations as the pool from which they draw jurors, and if you view being selected for jury duty as a negative, then it could very well be not in your interest to register to vote, much less to vote, from a game theory perspective.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
This link is not slashdotted.
Amazing magic tricks
I need this URL...for a friend.
www.[your-sister's-name-here].com
Sorry - not poking at you specifically - just couldn't resist the lure of the comic opportunity,... ;-)
Personally I believe it to be a mix of quite a few factors but I lean quite a bit towards not giving a fuck and it not mattering.
I'd chalk it up to the "here comes the new boss, same as the old boss" viewpoint instead. No matter who gets into office, very little actually changes because of it. The government still sucks, and it's going to suck no matter who the figurehead at the top happens to be. Maybe I'm jaded, but it seems to me that's who actually is President is really, really unimportant.
"Information collected from entrants is subject to the Eight Days, Inc. Privacy Policy, available at Sponsor's web site, http://HOTorNOT.com"
I'm at work and can't check that site's policy (for obvious reasons); does this mean I'm gonna get junk?
It is illegal to offer anything in exchange for voting.
They're offering a chance at a prize for registering to vote, not to actually vote. Minor, but important, difference.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
(Most just accept the opinions spoon fed to them by the Media, whichever way you think it's biased)
I'm pretty sure that the media is biased towards the people owning the conglomerates that put out the media. Whatever makes them money is good, whatever costs them money is bad, no other values at all.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
In Canada I have never registered in my life to vote: I am either automatically registered via my tax form, or they find me at home through other means (drivers license).
Why is it so hard to vote in the States? Is this by design, a la the poll tax, or is this just the way everyone wants it?
It just seems really crazy that you can't just automatically enrol all tax payers, welfare recipients etc. to be registered.
Can someone honestly explain this?
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Communist parties used to do that in the 1940's, after WWII in countries which later became satellite states for the Soviet Union.
They transported people by buses and trucks - they even improved the method by giving them a ride from voting districts to voting districts, where they all could vote on behalf of dead people, who somehow made it to the voter's list.
Those were the great day of democracy, indeed.
I guess, it's not only "there is no such thing as free lunch", in case of voting, there is no "free ride".
I play a little game whenever stuff like this comes up. I call it 'spot the fascist.'
It's easy. Whatever else someone else says, whatever party they say they're with, whatever point of view they say they are supporting, you know you've found one when they come out against folks getting registered and voting.
In the USA, most places, you have to register before you can vote. If you don't register, you can't vote. Folks (when meeting the legal requirements of age, residency, etc.) should vote; therefor they should register to vote.
It doesn't matter why they register. It doesn't matter why they vote. It matters that they do register and vote.
I'm reminded of a discussion on NPR about prisoner voting. The 'against' side brought up some of the same arguments we hear is the student voting discussions. Dorms/prisons are temporary residence; students/prisoners don't have a stake in the community; have the option of absentee ballet, the usual.
I found myself starting seeing the logic on the side against, when the guy come out with (paraphrasing) 'large prison populations dominate small communities, and we don't like who prisoners might vote for.'
Did you spot the fascist?
In conclusion, I support rules governing the voting process and who gets to vote. I'm not coming out for anarchy. However, someone's motivation for registering or voting, or who they might vote (or not vote) for should have no bearing on their legal status as a voter and should not be used by others as encouragement to not vote.
Vote early, vote often.
BTW, where is it illegal for poll workers to ask for ID?
If you didn't vote in 2000, or know someone who hasn't then listen to this:
e ws/Nader.Barely.Misses.Federal.Funding-700791.shtm l)
1) In 2000, national voter turnout was 51.3%. (Source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html)
2) For a party to get federal funding, they need to get 5% or more.
3) That means that if the remaining 48.7% voted randomly then we could have a total of 11 parties running. (9 at 5% each, plus the standard 2).
11 parties nationally recognized in the US!!!! And all that has to happen is people must just vote - vote for anyone! Their dog! Their mom! Some weird-lookin' independent guy you hear about on the news now and then!
Ralph Nader wanted to get 5% of the vote in 2000, but only got 3%. That means 2% of the population could have just gotten up and made a powerful statement for change just by walking down the street to your nearest voting place, and pulled a random lever in a booth. You don't even have to agree with the guy.
(Source http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2000/11/09/N
Anyhow, I encourage everyone to pass this on. That may make some of the apathetic voters go out and do some good. Having more alternatives would be a major help to the US election system. (Then, we can push for run-off elections so we can reduce the split-election problem)
Kerry moves that much closer to socialism with increased Nationalistic moves towards our boundaries with jobs and trade, increased taxes, and far too many government spending programs that we just don't need
I can think of a "government spending program" that the world surely don't need...
We should all write in "None of the above".
That would send a message.
I don't know if anyone would listen...
You either vote or spend a day in jail.
It was done in the past to fill the ranks in armed forces during wartime....
Why not do the same thing for Washington, D.C., the seat of America's power.
Simply assign numbers (not SSN#!) to every living American citizen and RANDOMLY SELECT Americans who are old enough, are sound in mind and body, and properly qualified per the U.S. Constitution for one and only one term of duty as:
1) President Of The United States
2) A Supreme Court Justice (4 years max--no more lifetime appointments nonsense!)
3) A U.S. Senator
4) A U.S. House of Representatives representative
Then scrap all manner of the election process at this level by Constitutional Amendmant (i.e. Electoral College, popular vote, etc).
As a pre-reqisite, all Americans are to 'internalize' the Constitution Of The United States so they will be prepared for the job should they be randomly chosen.
This idea is likely pie in the sky, but it would go a long way to stop corruption, influence peddling, and 'career politicians' in Washington, D. C.
www.none-of-your-goddamned-business.org.
If you haven't taken the time to register yet, if you don't know what district and precinct you are in, and if you have no idea who is running for your local school board, city council, state legislature, and the federal seats, then please do us all a favor and stay home.
If you don't know who Adam Smith is and why he is a significant figure in American history, what makes the Declaration of Independence so ground-shakingly important, what the first three words of the Constitution are, and why the two parties are called "Democrat" and "Republican", please stay home and don't vote.
Democracy isn't the right kind of government for you. You aren't educating yourself, you aren't taking up the responsibility of self government, and you are more than willing to give your power away. So rather than give it to some politicians who would love to have you vote for them despite your incredible ignorance, why don't you just let those voters who do know what they are voting for make the important decisions for you?
To all my fellow Americans, I would ask that if you want to participate in the process, participate fully and extensively. Don't just stop at voting. Go out and meet the candidates. Get to know the issues they are facing. Ask you school board, "What are the issues you are facing?" Ask your state legislators, "What can I do to help make our state better?" Go knock on doors and meet other people and tell them what you feel is important and listen to what they feel is important. That way, when you go out and vote, you aren't just guessing, you are making decisions that will have long-term effects.
The world of politics is mind-bogglingly big, and everyone is invited to participate. But if you would rather stay out of the party, then stay out all the way.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
The simple fact is, a lot of these voter registration drives target places which are a) in swing states, and b) demographically likely to vote for Kerry. Nothing wrong with that, it's what I'm planning to do.
There's also efforts by the republicans to get churchgoers, evangelicals, etc, to vote.
So what seems like a blind and somewhat confusing desire to 'get everyone to vote' is actually a desire to 'get everyone who's probabilistically likely to vote for the same people i vote for to vote'
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I replied to the first person who asked, but it's buried in the thread. Sorry for the confusion - I thought it was nationwide.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Sorry, that's just not how we do it round these parts. In the US the candidates and the people who like them smear the other relentlessly in order to 'drive up their negatives' and get people to hate them.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Why do people think that it is a good thing for uneducated, uninterested people to vote? These types of people will only worsen the signal to noise ratio in our already messed up election system. Voting should be based on a rational reasoning process, and it should _not_ be based on hype, fluf, bells, and whistles.
to complain. They consented to the process and to abide by the outcome.
I hate the cliche about not voting/not complaining.
Not voting is a political act as much as voting is.
If voting actually mattered it would be illegal.
My biggest complaint in both cases is missing options.
(Is Nadar the Cowbow Neal option?)
I think this website has a more interesting message about this election.
DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
The problem is that for people who are truly smart enough and capable enough to change the system could probably make a lot of money doing somthing else. The ones that are left are thsoe who desire power more then wealth and comfort.
Honestly, I think that if we can pay CEOs millions and millions, why not pay the people who actualy run the country similarly?.
I'd rather have this country run by people who want the paycheck then people who want the power.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'd start in with some vague ramblings about how apathetic people tend to vote for the incumbents just because they've heard the name, and maybe the people pushing for greater voter participation just want to keep things the way they are...
... they're young ... probably single ... possibly more educated, since they use computers? Not sure about that one. In any case, off the top of my head, I'm thinking they vote Democratic. I know for a fact that young and single skews that way.
Quite the opposite, actually. No tinfoil necessary. You're right that GOTV campaigns are never really nonpartisan -- whichever way the demographic being targeted tends to vote, that's the side the organizers are supporting.
As for the audience for HotOrNot, let's see
If my guess about the demographic is right, and the organizers aren't Democrats, then they're fools.
Incidentally, I'd question the idea that people who don't vote aren't informed. I think it's just as likely that they have opinions about politics as useful as ours, but don't see any particular reward or impact from voting. Offering some additional reward in that case makes a lot of sense. I'm sure there are also some who are just uninformed, but I wouldn't be so quick to write off the mass of non-voters.
Didn't think such a badly programmed site could actually bring them that amount of money.
.....)
Only in america does the crappiest prevail (Microsoft Windows, Hot Or Not, VHS,
A representative democracy, yes. But one that is a 2 party monopoly.
But I would say that is a poor substitute for the more democratic systems found in most REAL democracies, such as the healthy multiparty democracies with some form of proportional representation.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I don't agree with the sentiment Carlin expresses about voting here at all (and I would suspect even he would argue differently today), but, as others point out, the Night of Long Knives took place two years after Hitler was elected in 1932. He was popular and he was elected in an election. "Full, free, democratic" may be an exaggeration, but one can say the same about U.S. elections. There's no question that Hitler's government was corrupt and evil, but it was a popular government, at least at first, and in fact there is evidence that Hitler's rule was even popular in some of the countries the Nazis invaded as well. Carlin's overall point -- that the popularity of a leader is no guarantee that he or she will be beneficial to society -- is quite reasonable, and Hitler is a good example of that.
Obligitory warning - heavy liberal stuff ahead
I choose NOT to vote for the republicans this time around becuase they have been unconstitutional since day 1 in office. And even before office. What is the first thing you do when you decide to run for president (besides start thinking off who's votes you can buy)? You choose your running mate.
Cheney is from the same state (although he "claims" residence in Wyoming he is a resident of texas) that bush is from. BIG NO NO when running for president. This is a givin. People from the same state will probably have the same intrests in mine. Secondly, I don't like the big business tactics that have been put in place. I remember a time when I could call Dell, or god forbid Compaq and actually speak to a representitive that knew what they were talking about if I was having a computer issue. Not so now. I'm not talking down upon people from india, but i've yet had one resolve any sort of problem i've had - well, there has only been one regarding a canon printer that I actually broke down and called tech support... later a friend told me the solution (it was deleting a key in the registry). I talked to their reps for ages... all they told me to do was uninstall the drivers and try again.
Third, I don't like an Administration whos key intrest is business. Does anyone remember the 60 scientists, 20 of whom were nobel lauriets, who came together to protest what was going on with the Bush Admininstration EPA? If not, just search for it.
I could go on, but I need to go to zoology and learn what species are going to be extinct becuase of people like cheney who are looking out for number one.
Oh yea... I won't vote for Bush becuase this is the first time in HISTORY (yes EVER) that a country has gone to war and gave a tax relief - plunging the national debt down the whole. And who will pay for that? Well, probably me, right around the time I get out of college, and if bush gets relected, my kids will most likely be paying for this crap of a war that has made 1% of the people in this country even richer.
Aristotle once said "A vibrant middle class makes for a wonderful democracy." As our middle class shrinks and our upper and lower grows, you will see our liberties and freedoms deminish more than they have already.
And I pitty the fool who might mod this down as I gave the obligitory liberal warning before I started this rant. (which could go on for ages, slamming bush politics)
Well, then, why bother with elections at all? Why not just appoint you and your 100 friends monarchs-for-life? The whole point of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just the people you think are the smartest or the best informed.
Way to slip in the referrer code. And get modded +5. Purely brilliant.
Your "right to bitch" is protected by the First Amendment whether you choose to vote or not. Also you just as easily could say the reverse -- you lose your right to bitch about the candidate you vote for because, well, you voted for him. Both arguments are stupid. Voting is not about your right to bitch; it is about your right to participate in your own governance. Both rights are precious in a free society.
I think you need to widen your political outlook. The political spectrum isn't simply composed of Fascists, Anarchists and Good, Honest, True Americans.
Just because someone wants to tighten voting rules and regulations doesn't make them a fascist. At the same time, opposing those rules doesn't make someone an anarchist. An anarchist would be pretty offended that you would characterize them as someone who believes in voting for a government under a minimal set of rules. An anarchist doesn't believe that one person should ever have authority over another person -- an outlook that doesn't mesh very well with voting.
With no rules about who can vote, when they can vote, and how often they can vote, voting becomes completely meaningless. But that isn't the same thing as anarchy.
On the other hand, if you take voting restrictions to extremes you will end up with meaningless votes. No question there. However, there are a number of political systems which may or may not have restricted elections. The word that best suits a system where the government has control over its citizens' everyday lives is authoritarianism, or at the extreme totalitarianism.
Really this discussion is all about the right number of restrictions on votes in a democratic system. I guess the answer to that depends on what the desired outcome of the voting is.
In a totalitarian regime, the purpose of voting is to make the government seem legitimate. In an authoritarian one, it may be that, or it may be to make the people feel as if they have some say in how things go. The question is, what's the purpose of an election in a democratic republic. Is the purpose to express the will of the voters, and have them choose the person they want to represent them, or is it to have the public choose the person who is best qualified to represent them? Those two options may seem like they're the same thing, but they're not.
In the first case, if the people choose to elect a mass murdering psychopath, the system is working perfectly -- as long as their votes were accurately counted. If the goal is to choose a person who is qualified, then the choice of a psychopath would be a failure.
So the question is, what's the goal of the US democracy? Is it to choose qualified leaders who will help the country, or is it simply to allow the public to choose anybody they wish, whether that choice is self-destructive or not? If you believe that the country should be allowed to "shoot itself in the foot" if it wants to, then any restrictions on voting would be bad. On the other hand, if you think the goal is to choose leaders who will make the country a better place, then you should consider what restrictions would encourage the choice of good, responsible leaders.
People who believe that the act of voting is the important part should be ready to defend the right of the completely insane, or the severely mentally retarded to vote. People who believe that the important part is choosing a good leader should be willing to defend restrictions on who is allowed to vote.
Neither of these camps is "fascist" or "anarchist", they're just different varieties of democrat.
In some countries election day is a national holiday -- this will bring more people to the polls in the US, since a lot of people here would vote if they didn't have to work on election day. There are many ways to encourage people to vote without giving them free ipods and without making it a crime not to.
You take a pretty controversial position, but don't defend it: "It's important to vote, even if you vote for yourself or Mickey Mouse". Why?
Obviously you feel that merely participating in the process is important, even if your participation is meaningless. How is it any different to cast a meaningless vote as opposed to not casting any vote?
The only thing I can think of is that you fee it is important to show that you believe in the process... but do you? If the process only produces candidates you can't bring yourself to vote for, is it really all that good? Can you honestly say that the process shouldn't be changed if it can't produce a candidate you can vote for?
I'd rather have this country run by people who want the paycheck then people who want the power.
I swear, I just don't get it.
Here we see two perfect examples of the myth of the American dream, and not only are they back-toback, they're even raised in opposition to each other. It's like seeing two physicists argue with differential equations over the beauty of a sunset.
The "if you don't like it, then run yourself" meme is shortsighted. Now, I would not like its opposite ("you can't do anything no matter what you try") to become more popular than it is, but in this age, when the amount which a candidate has spent on an election has a ridiculously high correlation with his chance of winning it, it naive to believe that running in an election has a hope of change.
There are other options: you could become a professional lobbyist or activist, or a full-blown revolutionary. These may seem unpalatable, but the longer elections are won by the strong and the rich, the more attractive they will be.
The other shortsighted meme is that "money attracts competence". This is, obviously, a meme beloved of the rich, since it serves to justify their current state.
I just don't buy it. There are simply two many very rich people who are ridiculously corrupt and ineffective, and they aren't all lazy frat boys who are just sitting on their ancestors' money. Many of them "climbed the ladder", and were ultimately revealed to be hideously corrupt after their attainment of high status.
We have to realize that, though money and leadership competence are correlated, that the correlation is not perfect, and money should not be used as a measure of leadership quality.
It's fascist to make arguments that deny people the right to vote. And I do think it's horrible to keep felons from voting. It's an amazingly crafty way to give legislators a little power to politically marginalize groups by tweaking the classifications of various crimes a bit. (cue classic story about tweaking the "intent to sell" mass for one drug in one direction and another drug in another direction)
But arguing that someone shouldn't vote (as in they should not of their own accord, not that they should not be allowed to) isn't fascist. I'll defend the right of a racist organization to stand on street corners handing out pamphlets, but I also think they're a bunch of worthless fuckwads and wouldn't really be saddened if they got knocked off that street corner in a freak bus accident. There is no conflict there - free speech is all about being adult enough to accept the idea that people aren't always going to say things that you like.
Same for voting. I believe that every adult should have the right to vote, including groups like felons and the developmentally disabled. I also believe that there are some people who vote in a manner that is making a travesty of democracy, and would be much happier if these people a) shaped up or b) stopped voting. It angers me that people will vote for the most popular candidate just because he's the most popular candidate, or that people will just pick random names in local races where they don't even know who the candidates are. Hell, even people who vote based on what CNN, Fox, NPR (yes, NPR), et al have to say about the candidate piss me off - they're doing the electoral equivalent of trial by combat. I hold these opinions beause I strongly believe in the basic precepts upon which the idea of liberal government (Meaning democracies and republics, not donkeys running congress.) is founded, and it upsets me to see people simultaneously take their vote for granted and make a mockery of it in one careless act.
But for all that, I don't think that anyone should be denied their vote. Denying a vote is a far greater affront to democracy than squandering one. And it pisses me off more than squandering votes.
So yeah, all I'm saying is there are a lot of nuances. You gotta watch out for the nuances. The word 'fascist' has been diluted enough as it is.
Have you heard of the research into "induced traffic"? Researchers say that often widening a road will not help traffic much. Essentially, "if you build it, they will come". Traffic and traffic flow are really complex issues. Researchers still don't know exactly why traffic jams happen, or how to prevent them.
So here's a controversial question: What makes you qualified to express an opinion on how the government should deal with gridlock?
That question is at the center of questions about whether democracy is a good idea or not. In an election the issue of gridlock will come up. Say there are two politicians. One listens to the public will and says he'll widen the highways. The other listens to the researchers and figures out that the solution to gridlock is more complicated, and that the best solution is to change the design of the onramps and place more signs, but that widening the highway will actually make things worse.
I'm convinced that the voters would vote for the politician offering the simple solution that seems right for them as untrained non-experts, and the gridlock problem won't be fixed.
But you'll fail.
It isn't just lobbying, money and corruption that prevents good politicians from winning, it's the very nature of democracy. Say you're an economic genius and know the perfect, foolproof way of turning the economy into a juggernaut. The problem is, the explanation of why it will work is complex and can't be condensed into a 30 second soundbite. Say a quick overview of your plan by a non-expert will sound like something that won't work, or will cost people their jobs. No matter how smart you are, and how right you are, people won't vote for you because they're not qualified enough to understand your plan.
And that's when things work perfectly. Lobbying, money, corruption and the media are simply parts of American democracy. You can scream all you want about them, but if the media is on the side of your opponent because their lobbyists bought him, nobody will hear your screams -- or, better yet -- they'll hear them, but you'll be edited to sound like an idiot, like what happened to Howard Dean.
At some point, you just have to accept that the system is broken beyond its ability to repair itself.
Shh!!! One mustn't question The Cooling Power Of The Window. Society is all based on The Cooling Power Of The Window! Sure, there's no evidence to support the idea that rolling down the window helps, and in fact there's lots of evidence to the contrary, but... would our founding fathers have suggested The Cooling Power Of The Window if it didn't work?
Be a good citizen and roll down your window. Sure, it doesn't do anything -- it may even make it hotter, but you don't want to disturb the status quo, do you?
First of all, if your spouse/roommate/etc asks you what you want, there's some chance you'll get it. Not so with voting. Secondly, it's not like it's an open question. It's more like "Which do you want for dinner, raw sewage or a block of wood?"
You make it sound like there are only two options, when in fact, there are 3. "Candidate A, and the system works.", "Candidate B, and the system works" or "Nobody at all, the system is broken". The only real way to show that the system is broken is to refuse to participate in the system.
If I voted, I would be a complete hyprocrite. I think the system is completely broken and tell everybody who asks about it. If I participated in a system I thought was corrupt and broken then complained that the system was broken, I'd be a hypocrite. The only thing that makes my complaining not hypocritical is that I don't participate in the broken system.
I play a little game whenever stuff like this comes up. I call it 'spot the fascist.'
I like to play a little game whenever stuff like this comes up. I call it, 'spot the ultraliberal who has shut their brain off.' They're usually ones who start falsely labelling people like me facists, and adding me to their enemy lists.
Clearly, how could I want something as insidious as voters who care enough to register who will probably keep their ballots out of the hands of cheaters and be anything other than a facist?
Facists, facists, everywhere. You sure know how to call 'em.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Yeah, everybody else is saying "Vote, even if you vote for yourself or for Mickey Mouse, it's voting that's important" or "if you don't vote, you don't have any right to complain."
That's all complete BS.
If you're watching a magician and you know how he does the trick, do you still have to play along?
If your complaint is that party A is ruining things, and that party B will fix things, by all means vote for party B. If you don't, you're a hypocrite for complaining. On the other hand, if you think that both party A and party B are wholly corrupt and that the system needs to be scrapped and replaced with one that works better, then you'd be a real hypocrite for taking part in such a broken system, wouldn't you?
"Yeah, I voted, and thereby endorsed the political system, but I didn't really mean that I thought that the system was good, or that party A was good."
If voter turnout is at 70% and party A gets 55% of the voters who turn out, then they're pretty comfortable with how things are running, and they'll continue their corrupt ways. On the other hand, if they get their 55% of the votes cast, but only 10% of the population votes, if they're smart they'll worry. That 90% of the population that didn't vote obviously cares about what's going on in their own lives. If they didn't vote, that means they don't think that voting will help them. If they're smart, party A will realize that people are losing faith in the system, and the system will have to be changed, otherwise people will find a new (probably violent) way of changing things.
Don't think that by non-voters don't send a message. That message may be misinterpreted, but it is a message nonetheless.
If you believe the system is broken, don't vote. If you think the system is broken and you vote, you have no right to complain. You're a hypocrite for endorsing a system you don't believe in.
Now if you're a moderator and your finger is twitching near "flamebait", or "troll", think about it. Will people disagree with the contents of this post? Sure. Is it likely to provoke a heated discussion? Sure. If after that you think that it is a malicious attempt to subvert the discussion, go ahead and mod it down. But don't do it just because you disagree. If you disagree, post, don't moderate.
I refuse to vote until "neither" option is specifically added to the ballet. Not picking anyone is not the same.
I'd love to see what the statistics will be like with that third option.
It's fascist to make arguments that deny people the right to vote.
Actually, no. Fascism is something else. But it is ignorant to bandy around the term fascist like some sort of generic 'bad word to call somebody'.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Yeah, and people who think a dictatorial police state can possibly be communists are dorks, too. Whatever. Sob sob.
A lot of political words had one definition xxx decades ago, and a different one now. Fascist is one of those words.
There is tons and tons of psuedo ('social') science involving people meddling with traffic patterns, and engaging in wholesale social control. There's a big unelected body that engages in this in the Twin Cities metropolitan area (Minnesota) called the Metro Council. They apply the political pressure to prevent road widening that would reduce traffic congestion.
Their solution is to build a light rail corridor and then construct high density housing along said corridor. They want to pack the humans in like sardines where they can easily be controlled.
Organisations like this, and many 'self appointed experts' who claim people can't be trusted to make decisions, are profoundly undemocratic. They often are cheered on by the same political forces that run around labelling others 'fascist.' Which is really, really ironic.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Vote "NO" in 2004.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
This is a question I've wanted to ask every PSA urging me to 'rock the vote'. I'm not living in a swing state, we have a HUGE majority to the point where there's not 'any' chance of my state not coming out as the other party. So why should I, and the huge number of other people in my position, take time out of work and school to vote when it's not going to even be counted towards the election?
Everything will be taken away from you.
throw away your vot just to attract flies to the 3rd party...
I see all the signs on the corners and figure we might as well be voting for coke or pepsi - nobody should vote for someone based on the prevelance of their billboards or according to whois winning. No candidate should seek the vote of someone that doesn't know them and if they're full of shit. But that's never gonna happen.
you mean something like http://nf1229.VOTEorNOT.org ;)
:)
?
let's see who takes advantage of my generous link
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
If you want to hear sad news, get ready. At that start of high school Government, everyone had to take the immigration exam as a test of what we already knew. You need to score 90 or above out of 100 to become an American citizen, right?
7 of the 30-some people in my class passed that criteria.
That was pathetic. Especially since the questions practically answered themselves:
N ) Which of the following is the residence of the President:
N+1) The White House is the official home of who?
Or were asked repeatedly:
8) How many states are there in the Union?
100) How many states are there in the Union?
One of the ones most people missed was probably:
X) How many years can a president hold office?
A) 2
B) 4
C) 2 terms of 4 years
D) 10
And you wonder why politicians can get away with the bullshit they do...
Yep. Fascist now means 'somebody baaaaaad who I don't like, and I am a leftist.'
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
If you need to be "encouraged" to vote, or you use MTV to "Rock" your vote, or any of those gimmicks, please, DON'T VOTE! If you don't understand the issues, STAY HOME! If you think Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind the attack on Sept. 11, 2001, please stand away from the voting booth.
Seriously.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
this is a much more interesting site: aminakedornot.com
I'd rather have voting be a minor (5-10 minutes) effort. If you don't care enough about the country to be willing to spend 10 minutes to vote either in person or by absentee ballot, then I don't want you to have a voice.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Sister Jokes? Ah man... can we regree a little more? At least you spared his momma =P or did you...? Hhmmmm.....
Fave site: www.PatriotsInsider.com
The idea that only "intelligent", "educated" etc
people should vote is actually wrong. The logic
behind voting does not have to do with getting the
best possible decisions (best decisions come from
think tanks and specialists). The REAL reason
for voting is MORAL, and has to do with sharing
responsibility. The idea behing democracy is that
people should bear some of the burden of power.
After all, if you HAVE to vote you will, even out
of curiosity, try to learn something in order
to make an intelligent choice. This would really
force the political parties to address voters in
a completely different manner.
Once more, democracy is a system for distributing
*blame* (moral burden of power), not a system for
making optimal decisions.
P.
I've been thinking about this problem, in the context of polling. I'd like to make it easier to conduct polls, essentially because the usual polls are too easily worded/spun/suppressed to the financial and political aims of the media conglomerates who conduct them. So the issue as I frame it is: how can one conduct a poll where people can participate from a wide variety of geographic locations, without requiring people to submit personal information, but preventing people from voting thousands of times?
My current thinking on this involves two types of approaches:
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.