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
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
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.
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!
much like the free ...hooker
I need this URL...for a friend.
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?"
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!
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
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.
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.
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
Or if you don't think voting matters at all, you can Fuck the Vote.
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)
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.
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.