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."

Comments

Virals and sweeps...

[BoldAC]

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.

Re:Virals and sweeps...

[drinkypoo]

You have to enter your real name in the form. If you win and it turns out to be a psuedonym, they'll probably disqualify you. Sure they will be flooded with useless traffic but ALL their traffic is useless so what's the problem? :)

Re:Virals and sweeps...

[Lord Kano]

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.

They ask for your name, address and telephone number in addition to your email address. Most people don't have multiples of all of those too.

LK

Re:Virals and sweeps...

[SeanDuggan]

Honestly? Because whichever party gets the most vote in your state, it's their electoral college people who get to vote. (I'm still kind of hazy as to what happens if a third-party person should win in a state.) While theoretically, the electoral college could vote for whoever they want, the fact of the matter is that cases where they haven't are few and far between. (And those cases where they have, it's usually something insane (or a political statement) where someone votes for Mickey Mouse or some random third-party candidate. And really, cases where the electoral college total result and the popular vote results differ are very rare. You can find some history and neat-o facts here.

Re:Virals and sweeps...

[macslut]

Sorry, but you're very wrong. The Electoral College hadn't already voted when the Supreme Court made its decision. The EC voted on December 18, 2000. On November 24 of that hear the Supreme Court agreed to get involved and gave a final resolute ruling on December 9, a full 9 days before the EC was scheduled by law to vote.

The whole point of the issue what that a handful of votes determined which slate of electors would be chosen.

"So remind me again why my vote counts for anything?"

Because your vote goes for selecting the slate of electors in your state.

"We have no freedoms here in America. Only illusions that the ignorant cling to."

I'd highly recommend studying up on the constitution as well as how the EC works and why it's actually much more relevant today than when our founders created it. Once you understand the system, you'll understand the benefits of living in a republic as opposed to a democracy. You'll probably also understand why 3rd parties are retarded.

Wonder Why?

[romper]

In case you're wondering why they're doing this.

Re:Wonder Why?

[IEEEmember]

Or you could believe the terms and conditions;

By registering, entrants may sign up to receive email from Eight Days, Inc. ("Sponsor"). You can remove yourself from the email list by following onscreen instructions.

Which is in direct conflict with the entry form;

We only need the following info to contact you if you win. You will NOT get junk mail or spam for signing up.

Re:Wonder Why?

[romper]

For what it's worth, I've been a member of their site for a long time (even met a great girl on there), and have never gotten any spam from that signup other than the occasional message from them (and yes, I use unique addresses for different accounts to track this kind of thing), and you can remove yourself from their mailing list if you wish.

I think what they mean is they're not going to be selling your information to anyone else.

How about encouraging them to register

[Marxist Hacker 42]

By actually giving them a candidate they can agree with?

Re:How about encouraging them to register

[lboxman]

"This is the grammar police. You're under arrest for failure to use an apostrophe in a contraction. You have the right to use proper grammar or be silent. If you refuse this right..."

Re:How about encouraging them to register

[StalinsNotDead]

The "3rd party vote is a wasted vote" meme probably originates from the campaign planning sessions of the two major political parties. That way, even if left completely to random fluke, they still have a 50/50 chance, and they only have to worry about slinging mud at one target.

Besides, the average American doesn't want to do the research necessary to formulate an opinion about more than two candidates. (Most just accept the opinions spoon fed to them by the Media, whichever way you think it's biased)

To bad for the rest of us.

[agent dero]

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

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[HMA2000]

Even if you don't vote it is your god given right to complain. The idea that if you don't vote you can't complain is a platitude that makes no sense if you apply even a second of analysis to it.

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[Otter]

Shortly after turning 18 I registered to vote...

Me too, on my birthday. I'm still voting, but am considerably less hot. Or not.

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[TopShelf]

Oh you can certainly complain if you don't vote, but it undermines your credibility. Why should anyone care about the political opinion of someone who can't even be bothered to vote?

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[ImaLamer]

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

I think a George Carlin quote (or two) is in order:

Next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election.

and my personal favorite:

Think it through: if you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they screw things up, then you're responsible for what they've done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[Flower]

True, you can always complain, but it weakens your position immensely when you couldn't even be bothered to put your money where your mouth is.

It is not as if an American has to go through compulsory military service or run the risk of getting their tounge cut out and stuffed in a shirt pocket by exercising their right to vote. It's not as if it takes a lot of effort to be aware of the canidates or the issues - especially this time around. And it isn't that hard to get up and actually vote. Need a ride? Call City Hall and they'll hook you up. In another state? Go get a ballot sent to you.

People who are so hyped on exercising their right to free speech just so they can vent vacuous opinions then forgo exercising the one right that gives all those opinions purpose boggles my mind.

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh not to question Mr. Carlin, but has he heard of the night of long knives? Full, free democratic would not be the way to describe Germany circa 1932.

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[Yokaze]

Yes, you'd actually accomplished the complicated task of moving your body from your home to the nearest place where you can vote, and sacrificed a small part of your invaluable time.

The vote for Mickey Mouse would show, you do care enough to do at least so much, but you are unsatisfied with the choice.

Finally, an election is not about marrying the candidate. You don't have to like the candidate, you just have to like his political program better than the other one(s) program(s).

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[tsg]

Why should anyone care about the political opinion of someone who can't even be bothered to vote?

The assumption you're making is that the only reason people don't vote is because they're too lazy to.

If half the people have lost faith in the system, it's the system that is broken, not the people.

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[tsg]

Complaining about the state of affairs when you haven't voted is like complaining that it's too hot in your car when all you have to do is roll the window down.

This is, of course, assuming that rolling the window down will make it cooler.

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[Hatta]

Wrong, by voting you are accepting the limited choices presented to you. As Thoreau said, "Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it, it is merely expressing feebly your desire that it should prevail." Change will come through direct action by the people, not by picking the fat cat you find least objectionable.

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[Yokaze]

> "Next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election"

And how is this an argument against "civic bullshit"?

Fact is, Hitler didn't get the majority of the votes (in the last free democratic election 33%).
The reason why he gained so much power, was because of a lack of such "civic bullshit".

> "Think it through: [...]"

I wish, one would. Not voting is as good as voting for whoever gets the post. Not voting is a valid choice. But also one for which you are responsible.

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[soyuz_2]

I was going to say that, but thank you for doing it. If you were sick that day in World history (or German, if you're German, I guess), read about it here

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[Minna Kirai]

I was going to say that, but thank you for doing it.

And what's that supposed to show, exactly? Hitler was elected in 1932, and the "Night of Long Knives" was July 1, 1934.

If you want to prove that Hitler's election was fraudulent or coerced, you'll can't argue based on events two years later.

Vote or shut up!

[jarich]

Seriously, if you don't care enough to vote, then you shouldn't be complaining about the result.

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!

Re:Vote or shut up!

[the economist troll]

If you think the two major-party presidential candidates are "nearly identical" on the issues that matter most to people (i.e. those who have ventured beyond the sheltered environment of their college campus), you're a fucking retard. Not to mention, contrary to popular belief, the presidential race isn't the only campaign going on right now.

Re:Vote or shut up!

[Monx]

I will continue to bitch and not vote until we ditch the two party system or I die

Then vote for a third party candidate! If you just fail to vote, nobody in power cares. If you vote for a third party candidate, then at least you show up as yet another person who doesn't like the two-party system. People who don't vote get lumped together as lazy and irresponsible whether they do it from sloth or in protest against the system. BTW: if you register with a third party affiliation, the folks in power notice that too.

People who are eligible to vote but don't and still have the gall to complain make me sick.

I'd like to see mandatory voting with a "none of the above" option and a 50% +1 majority to win with runoffs as needed.

Re:Vote or shut up!

[Kenja]

Your right, they are VERY diferent. Ones an idiot fuck which the other is a fucking idiot. Its just too hard for me to chose between such diverse choices.

As for the rest, yes I vote on local and federal issues that I am knowledable about, however I'm prety sure that the topic of discussion is the presidental race which I will not participate in in case the guy I voted for wins making me partially responsible for their crimes.

Re:Vote or shut up!

[jadavis]

Why encourage other people to vote? I'd rather be 1 out of 100 registered voters than 1 out of 100 million registered voters.

What we're really doing when we scrape for more votes is we tell the people who have only seen the rhetoric and catch phrases to make a decision.

People who don't understand economics are just not going to make good decisions at the polls. People who do not understand the structure of our government are not going to make good decisions at the polls (Do states have any individual power anymore? Not really, everything is Federal now because not enough voters know the difference. So much for the United States of America.).

People who don't understand these concepts have a right to vote. But why are we encouraging them?

My theory is that when these people do vote, they vote primarily for one party, and that is the party that encourages them to vote. I don't see much altruism in the "get out the vote" crowd at all.

Don't vote, don't bitch

[onyxruby]

Think of this vote as your right to bitch for the next four years. If you don't vote you have no right to complain, because you could have done something about it, and didn't.

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.

Re:Don't vote, don't bitch

[lpangelrob2]

I'm not the biggest fan of this reasoning. You have a right to complain even if you made an informed decision not to vote for either candidate in any race.

Submitting an empty ballot can be an individually powerful message. It tells both parties that "Hey, I don't like either of you guys. Come up with something that better suits me in the future". Selfish, perhaps, but seeing as they're public servants, better to let them know this way than by idlly letting someone else decide for you.

Re:Don't vote, don't bitch

[pyrrhonist]

If you don't vote you have no right to complain

This reminds me of a very old Dilbert:

Dilbert: ...and people who don't bother to vote have no right to complain.
Dogbert: Why not?
Dilbert: Why not? It's obvious. No vote means no right to complain. You can't get much more logical than that. Besides, that's how I was raised.
Dogbert: You were raised by bumper stickers?

Re:Don't vote, don't bitch

[mrmtampa]

IMO those of us who we're drafted (dating myself) into the Armed Services have earned permanent bitching rights. Actively choosing not to vote is also participating.

I think it would be much more constructive...

[Jhon]

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).

Interesting discussion on the radio...

[Nos.]

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.

Re:Interesting discussion on the radio...

[rainman_bc]

Then don't waste your time voting. Chose the lesser of evils because they represent your voice.

The argument "they are all crap" is horseshit. They all stand for different things, and you pick the one closest. Remember, you aren't supporting them; you're also asking them to support you when they are in office.

You should vote in respect for the people throughout the world who die fighting for their right to vote. It's disrepesctful of those who've died for the right to vote to spoil your ballot.

Democracy isn't perfect, but it sure as hell is better than any other alternative out there.

Re:Interesting discussion on the radio...

[Chess_the_cat]

However, I believe that spoiling my ballot may show the politicians that people are not happy with the choices available to them.

Bullshit. If you can't find a candidate you like amongst the Bloc Québécois, The Canadian Action Party, The Christian Heritage Party, The Communist Party of Canada, The Conservative Party of Canada, The Green Party of Canada, The Liberal Party of Canada, The Libertarian Party of Canada, The Marijuana Party, The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, The New Democratic Party, The Progressive Canadian Party, or the Republican Party of Canada then you've got problems. Or if you honestly can't find someone to vote for then fucking RUN YOURSELF! Spoiling your ballot is the pussy's way out. End of story.

Re:Interesting discussion on the radio...

[barawn]

The argument "they are all crap" is horseshit. They all stand for different things, and you pick the one closest.

It's not a bad argument at all. It's sad that the system has degraded to picking the "lesser of two evils" at all. If you do think "they are all crap", then vote for yourself, by write-in.

That's better than not voting, and it's better than insulting the system by voting for someone you don't want. It's not about winning, or preventing someone from winning. It's about selecting the candidate that most people want.


You should vote in respect for the people throughout the world who die fighting for their right to vote. It's disrepesctful of those who've died for the right to vote to spoil your ballot.

Spoil your ballot? You mean by voting for someone you don't actually want to win? How is this different than the "pre-rigged" elections that the Soviet Union and Iraq had, except for the fact that there is a possible outcome of more than one person?

Representative democracy means you vote for someone who represents you. If you vote for someone who doesn't represent you, just because you don't want to vote for someone else, that destroys democracy, or worse: it makes it into a farce.

If you vote for Bush because you don't want to vote for Kerry, you're crazy. Look at the third party candidates, and vote for them. Or write yourself in. Same goes for Kerry.

I wish someone would poll people and find out how many people are voting for each respective candidate because they don't like the other one. That's what frightens me. We might as well not even have a democracy if those numbers are high, because you'll end up getting someone who people didn't actually want, just because TV/radio/newspapers/Internet/DNC/RNC selected two people.

Re:Interesting discussion on the radio...

[rainman_bc]

No offence but Americans have no idea how good they have it. Go over to China and take a look.

If I was American, I'd be the first to admit that Members of Congress are nothing but cheap whores to industry. However at least I can say it with a bunch of other people, and all that'll happen is a group of Republicans will call me Anti-American - I won't get shot in Tianenman square for it.

Oh, and ask the people of Switzerland and Swedan if they are happy with their political systems. I'd bet they'd have some gripes too...

As a resident of North Dakota..

[Thng]

I'm not eligible by the letter of the sweepstakes: "To win, you must be a registered voter in time to vote on November 2, 2004."

ND is the only state that does not have voter registration.

Re:As a resident of North Dakota..

[TykeClone]

The 6 people who live there know each other anyway - registering would serve no purpose.

We just need a whole new election system!

[garcia]

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!

One good thing...

[keiferb]

...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.

Re:jury duty

[ReidMaynard]

In North Carolina the Jury Duty list is gotten from the list of registered automobile owners.

English?

[JaredOfEuropa]

...providing a selection advantage for viral dispersal of the meme

Whatever happened to plain English? For a minute I thought my PHB submitted this story :)

Re:Virals and sweeps.../ URL PLEASE

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

much like the free ...hooker

I need this URL...for a friend.

Sad commentary

[MikeMacK]

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.

Re:Sad commentary

[tuxette]

In Norway, you get your voter card (the one that says where to go and vote and when) automatically sent to your registered address (more or less your tax residency). This is happens for all elections.

Foreigners in Norway are allowed to vote in local elections after 3 years of legal residency. After my third year here, I got my voter card in the mail. Unprovoked. No registration or anything. Very nice.

All of the Norwegians I know find the idea of having to register to vote very offensive and provokative. Some say that the reason why automatic "registration" doesn't exist in the US, is that if it were the case, people might actually vote!

Re:Sad commentary

[tuxette]

I am free to travel and move around the country with no need to register my location with the government at any time.

Oh, I see you don't understand what it means to have a registered address. It is the address used to send your tax forms to and the address used as a basis for welfare benefits you may be entitled to. It has nothing to do with where and when you travel.

When you register to vote and register a car in the US, you have to provide an address. Even your taxes have to go somewhere. Or are you a tax evader?

Mandatory Voting

[trifakir]

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.

Re:Mandatory Voting

[grammar fascist]

Does that make it harder to oust the incumbent? It seems like it would: people who are otherwise not involved in politics are usually more likely to at least know the name of the incumbent.

If the challenger were someone like Ahnold, though, it would be a different story...so I predict that Greece's politics is full of career politicians and movie stars. :)

Re:Mandatory Voting

[jea6]

The city states in the area we now refer to as the country of Greece had various forms of government, none of which were representative of all the people. The BBC has a good write-up. In any case, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic.

Re:Mandatory Voting

[tsg]

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.

Making voting mandatory simply increases the number of uninformed voters. Personally, I'd rather the people who can't be bothered stay home and leave the decision making to those who care.

Make people care and they will find their way to the polls all by themselves.

Re:Mandatory Voting

[ender81b]

Making voting mandatory simply increases the number of uninformed voters. Personally, I'd rather the people who can't be bothered stay home and leave the decision making to those who care.

Poli Sci studies show that those groups tend to just balance each other out so, in the long run, it doesn't matter. Hell - voting for somebody just by basis of their party is, in fact, a somewhat logical choice. Even voting by looks can be argued to be a logical, rational, decision.

Why not vote Cthulhu?

[Kenja]

Vote Cthulhu! Why settle for the lesser of two evils?

Re:"Exclude stories" not working?

[GigsVT]

There's no other politics.slashdot.org, so there's no need for the distinction.

I don't understand why there is so much bitching and whining about this. If I read a German tech news site frequently, I wouldn't be surprised if they opened a politics section that talked only about German politics, I'd expect it!

But voting is not rational

[catbutt]

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)

Spam

[dv8ed]

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.

That's a hell of a lot of words to say that it encourages people to spam.

Democrat tactic.....

[jsimon12]

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.

Missed Opportunity?

[romper]

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! =)

Voter Registration and rights

[razmaspaz]

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.

Register to vote?

[Jezral]

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.

Re:Register to vote?

[tuxette]

Here in Denmark, every person over 18 is sent a card and a place/time to vote. No registration.

Yeah, same here in Norway. And I suppose you also allow foreigners to vote in local elections after 3 years? ANd they get their cards automatically, right?

The result is that 80+% actually vote...

A whole bunch of people were throwing big fat hissy-fits all over the place after the last local election here (2003) because only an average of 75% (or something like that) voted! And that it was a big scandal (!!!)

Re:Register to vote?

[hibiki_r]

Same thing happens in Spain, but there only 60% or so vote. For the EU elections, less that 50% is the norm. I guess it has more to do with people actually thinking that a change of government would mean a change in their lives or not. In Spain most people don't really care either way, so unless something major happens, there won't be a big turnout. I've been living in the US for more than 6 years, and IMO the same thing happens: most people just don't care.

I guess that in Denmark the government is something more than a source of corruption/scandals :)

Re:Terrible idea

[Luyseyal]

It's not illegal to ask for ID at polls... not in Texas anyway. They ask you for your registration card or gov't ID or you don't get a ballot.

-l

Re:How about fuck voting

[Linnwood]

God, will you quit posting your shit in these politcal threads? wtf!

Re:jury duty

[philbert26]

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?

In some states they do this. However this often results in a shortage of jurors, so some states (like Washington) pull jurors from the DMV records as well, so unless you don't drive, there's no advantage to not voting.

It's a bit scary to think that the government is actively trying to find people who can't be bothered to vote and stick them on juries, but I guess they got desperate.

"Get Out and Vote!" = Dangerous

[Kombat]

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.

I'm not signing up

[DoubleDownOnEleven]

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.

6 on one hand, half dozen on the other

[AssFace]

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.

I take it a step further

[ElForesto]

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!)

Re:I take it a step further

[digitac]

Now we know Ralph Nader's /. id!

Good luck Nader!

this is illegal

[toiletmonster]

i think this is illegal.

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. ht ml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/mnmain.htm

Unfortunately, this is illegal

[Randym]

It is illegal to offer anything in exchange for voting. Not just, illegal to offer anything for voting *a certain way*; it is illegal to offer any incentive to vote *at all*. That's why it "hasn't been done before".

Thanks for trying though.

The problem with not voting.

[Bombcar]

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.

Too many people vote already

[Pomme de Terre!]

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!

Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.....

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4956543.htm l

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."

Re:How about fuck voting

[mosch]

ROFL until I drop a WTF BOMB on U! OMG!

Re:Terrible idea

[Jonboy X]

Frankly, even if the otherwise lazy people actually followed through and voted, I'm not sure it'd be in the country's best interest for them to do so. By encouraging people who really don't care about anything but a free iPod to vote, you effectively dilute the votes of people who genuinely do care about issues that affect them, or are at least willing to put forth the effort required to become an informed voter. 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...but I don't really want to go there, and my tin-foil hat's at the cleaner's.

F*** The Vote

[kubed]

Or if you don't think voting matters at all, you can Fuck the Vote.

$100K each?

[El_Smack]

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.

Re:Help for time off

[abh]

Everywhere I have ever lived has what is called an "absentee ballot". You can register to vote by mail, permanently. I voted a couple weeks ago for the primary election which is next week.

Re:Help for time off

[taustin]

It is illegal to prevent an employee from voting by not giving them time off. If they can make it outside of work hourse, there is no requirement to let them take time off. If they *can't* get to vote outside working hours (usually, apparently, 2-3 hours of poll time outside work hours), nearly all states require time off without repercussion. Many require paid time off.

In short, what you propose is already law.

You should have known that.

Re:Virals and sweeps.../ URL PLEASE

[Yewbert]

much like the free ...hooker

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,... ;-)

How is registering to vote a bad idea?

[mcmonkey]

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?

Re:How is registering to vote a bad idea?

[kaitou]

I am not sure I see it as being "fascist" when a town of 5000 has no itnerest to accept votes of the 2000 or so prisioners that are being held in a prision on the outskirts of it. Especialy if you keep in mind that the people in the prision have a vested interest in lowering the capability of the government/law enforcment capability of the area that they are interred in. They should certanly be allowed to do absentee votes for the area of their permanent residence, but I am not sure I see why they should have an influence on the area. With college students it would be quite different, because at the least they chose to live in the area, and they do interact with the area they live in on a more stable basis.

Re:How is registering to vote a bad idea?

[hendridm]

It doesn't matter why they register. It doesn't matter why they vote. It matters that they do register and vote ... Vote early, vote often.

I disagree. I think voting is important, but I think it's more important that you have an informed vote. I know so many people that are voting for a particular candidate because "he's not Bush". Well, that's fine, but when you start pressing them for opinions on some of the major issues, their answer is almost invariably, "Well, I don't know, but at least he's not Bush." I don't really care who you vote for. Kerry, Bush, someone else. Doesn't matter. But I think it's destructive to society to vote for someone based on how many billboards you see on the way to work. You don't have to vote for the candidate that I personally like - just do a little damn research before voting or please don't vote at all. That is all.

Vote randomly!

[MobyDisk]

If you didn't vote in 2000, or know someone who hasn't then listen to this:

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/Ne ws/Nader.Barely.Misses.Federal.Funding-700791.shtm l)

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)

Re:Terrible idea

[mcmonkey]

my tin-foil hat's at the cleaner's

1. Unless you run a focused campaign, voter registration drives most likely have no short term effects on election outcome.

Across the US of A, non-voter demographics and party/candidate affiliations are pretty darn close to those of voters. Hopefully, there is a long term effect of more people getting involved in the process and continuing to vote, but something as unfocused as VoteOrNot is highly unlikely to turn the election to one side or the other.

2. Without dropping down to the level of personal attack and troll, attitudes like those expressed by the parent poster make me want to puke. "_______ is better off not voting." (blacks\women\lazy\whomever we don't like this week) F' you, ya F'in fascist.

Do you meet the constitutional legal requirements to vote? (Age/residency/ whatever) If yes, then register and vote. Get all your news from GameSpot? Fine, vote. Can't be any worse than someone who gets all their news from the 700 club. Lazy? We need your vote. Do you really want the fate of the nation decided by the freaks who actually went to morning classes in college?

By encouraging people who really don't care about anything but a free iPod to vote, you effectively dilute the votes of people who genuinely do care about issues that affect them, or are at least willing to put forth the effort required to become an informed voter.

I watch Fox news every day. And nothing else. Am I an informed voter?

I watch The Daily Show. When there isn't a good re-run of Family Guy on 'toon. Am I an informed voter?

Saddam tried to kill my daddy. WMD? Look at this monkey! Am I an informed voter?

Bottom line, voting, and encouraging others to vote, is just about the most patriotic thing a USA citizen can do. Discouraging anyone meeting the legal requirements from voting borders on treason. Who the hell are you, who is anyone, to decide how much someone needs to care, or what they need to care about to vote? If someone registers and votes, what other effort is required? Instead of 'informed voter' why don't you just come out and say 'literacy test' aka recite this passage from the new testament in latin, oh fine! Let's not beat around the bush, Rich White Men! Cause no one else knows enough, or cares enough, right? So we'll just let ole whitey take care of everything.

oh man...that's not gonna help the karma.

what's the demographic?

[Heisenbug]

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...

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 ... 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.

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.

Re:what's the demographic?

[mcmonkey]

If my guess about the demographic is right, and the organizers aren't Democrats, then they're fools.

I'd guess you're not as right as you think you are. Old Republicans come form somewhere. Sometimes it's young Republicans. Computer access...possibly more well-off...probably financially above-average...very likely Republican.

And don't let the subject matter through you off. Just because the Republicans don't want you to see dirty pictures and have fun in the privacy of your own bedroom, doesn't mean they're not the party of adulterers and dirty old men.

And what if Jim and James go for Party A, VoteOrNot leads to a bunch of votes for Party B? How does that make them fools? Maybe they're just trying to get more people registered and voting.

how is that insightful?

[commodoresloat]

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.

elitism

[commodoresloat]

I'd rather be 1 out of 100 registered voters than 1 out of 100 million registered voters.

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.

Fascist, Anarchist or True American?

[Merk]

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.

Re:Terrible idea

[ConceptJunkie]

California seems to go out of their way to facilitate voter fraud. Maybe that's because 25% of their electorate aren't U.S. citizens?

Make election day a holiday

[commodoresloat]

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.

How dare you question The Theology of the Window?

[Merk]

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?

Sad commentary on the state of political knowledge

[The Master Control P]

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...