Slashdot Mirror
Video Game Characters to Get Out the Vote
Thanks to Gamasutra for the heads up about a political music video starring video game characters that is to start airing on MTV today. The newest "Choose or Lose" video will feature characters from popular video games such as The Sims and BloodRayne and is intended to encourage youth voters to show up at the polls. The video will air for the first time on MTV today on TRL, and afterwards can be seen on the MTV Choose or Lose site. This follows closely on the heels of MTV2's Video Mods series, which uses video game footage for the visuals in music videos.
I'm all for high voter turnout. But I also think people should be informed before rushing to the ballot box.
I don't really care for a lot of these recent "get out the vote" efforts. A lot of people who don't vote don't have a clue about who is running. Many can't name the president, and certainly not their congressman. Do they know where each candidate stands on even one issue? Probably not. They do know who just broke up in Hollywood though, and the last person to be kicked off Survivor.
If these people flock to the polls, they'll simply dilute the votes of people like you and me, who really, honestly, and deeply care about voting. They will probably vote for whoever their friends are voting for. They might randomly pick somebody off the ballot. They'll probably just pick whoever they recognize or like more from the 10 seconds they saw them on TV. Is this a good idea? Not really.
Convince people to care, then convince them to vote. That's what I say.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
I used to be of the mindset that if you need to be encouraged to vote, you shouldn't be voting. But I've since changed my mind.
No one is born realizing the importance of voting. Somewhere, you are socialized, and you come to believe that voting is important. Maybe it was due to school, or family, or friends. But not everyone has that experience. Some people come from families were there was no pattern of voting. Or their schools sucked and never talked about it.
So that's why I do support these "unconventional" methods. And I think you should, too. When a large segment of the population feels disconnected from their government, the entire society becomes unstable.
Sad statement? What does that even mean? I realize it's popular nowdays on Slashdot to condescend to Americans, but I don't see how it's sad at all. What's sad is having less than abysmal voter turnout, which in our country has been gradually slipping down over decades to less than 50%. At this point, it's not that people aren't *informed*, it's that they are *apathetic*. If it takes some lights and shiny objects to get them interested again, by using what they are *already interested in*, what exactly is sad about that? I'd say it's a pretty smart way of beginning to reverse the downward slide of voter participation.
I think that MTV, while it may be biased towards the left, is mainly interested in motivating young voters.
The people that run this country are, by and large, over 50. "Out of touch" doesn't begin to cover it. Add to that, the fact that 20-somethings are notorious for not voting. (And for not really caring how the elections turn out.)
Politicians barely even pretend to listen to the concerns of "young people". If we were to turn out in record numbers in this election (regardless who we vote for) the political system would take notice. And they would speak and act towards the concerns of young people in this country (drugs, AIDS, poverty, student loans, unemployment...) rather than the concerns of older people (estate tax, social security, imprisoning everyone)
-tom
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I've seen suggestions that we should conduct a lottery in parallel with the election. When you go to vote, you can choose to contribute a dollar. If your number (or whatever) is chosen, you get the pot. Actually, this might be more enticing if there were 100 or 1000 winners.
I think this is a rather flippant judgement to pass on everyone who passes up their right to vote. The idea that voting should be reserved for some (educated/wealthy/"qualified") elite is disturbing.
The people who run your country affect everyone in it. The arguments of "if politics affect you, you vote of course" are shallow and miss the real point.
This ad is obviously aimed at MTVs core demographic with the ability to vote, namely those between 18-25 years old. This is a group in transition between child/teen and adult responsibilities, with all the inherent psychological upheaval.
The prime message drilled into young people as they grow up (ie high school and younger) is that due to your youth, you lack the necessary qualifications to make certain decisions. You can decide what to wear/eat/consume, but any "important" decisions (namely the decisions that change the alternatives to what one may consume) must be left up to those older and wiser.
Then, the adult world comes along. You are now old enough to make decisions for yourself! Passing the magic barrier of 18, you can now (fight/fuck/flee) anything you choose!
This is where the issue arises. It is obvious that a paradigm shift to the degree demanded by society (from forced lack of personal responsibility to forced personal responsibility) cannot take place overnight. One must start at the authority symbols nearest and easiest to usurp. I can do my own laundry! I have my own place! Once accomplished, one can move up the ladder to financial/romantic responsibilities, and so on.
The problem is that this "ladder" view is flawed. Typically geopolitical and economic concerns are relegated to the very top rungs of perception, with many people living their lives blissfully handing off responsibility. In reality, geo/local politics are intertwined at every step of the ladder. Bought your first car! Ever wonder if the current high price of gas is a result of your chosen leader's interesting foriegn policy decisions?
Of course not. Why? Because we teach politics in school as a seperate and elite topic. And math, and science, and geography, without the acknowledgement that politics is as much a part of science and geography as math is a part of physics.
Politics is regarded (and therefore avoided) as an old boys club by the young boys and girls who have the power to change it. Activities such as these "get out and vote" campaigns attempt to empower those who think that their vote and their voice does not and cannot matter.
The point of democracy is everyone participates, not just those deemed worthy.
The actress Wendy Hoopes who did the voice for "Mona Sax" in Max Payne 2, is currently doing LAX.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I've been trying to do a lot of research laely into the candidates for our upcoming election, and discussions I have with other people are for the most part an extremely disappointing experience. I am frankly shocked that people would vote "just to get W out of office" or "I vote for Bush because I hate Democrats" etc.
I hear a lot of rhetoric about "throwing your vote away". This is usually used as a reason to not vote for Nader, or the Libetarian party, etc. But it seems to me that a vote "just go get bush out of office" or a vote for a party just cause your parents raised you republican or democrat is really the wasted vote.
I think people have lost the focus that a vote is your own personal voice on how our country should be led. It's a sad state of affairs that we're stuck in this 2 party mentality where often people don't vote because they understand the issues of their candidate, or even know what their candidates' stance on the issues are, but cast a vote solely because it's their family tradition, or their hatred towards the other opponent.
I really wish that we could push through an electoral reform that would allow for multiple votes (#1 choice, 2nd choice, etc) or something. I think the power of the people has been stolen by this charade where it's not about the issues, or who is really the best leader, or what a political party will do (or not do) for a country, but something that is done in a thoughtless, rote manner.
I saw excerpts from Faranheit 911 where some protester says "I'd rather vote for a single celled organism than vote for Bush". What does that say about the value of your vote sir? I realise that's his opinion and he's entitled to vote with his opinion, but what does a choice using that methodology do to our country? Is Bush reallly absolutely the worst possible leader of our country? Is there no one worse to be our leader? What if Manson (heck, Charlie or Marilyn) were up against Bush? Is that still his stance? Would you let a convicted murderer lead our country over Bush?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like Bush very much. I am not convinced he's a good leader or that he's been entirely truthful to the American people, or our allies overseas. I feel the same way about Kerry, and Edwards. I am a little more comfortable with Cheney, but I suspect that's mainly because he's got a ton of experience in dealing with suprise crap, rather than anything else.
After a little research so far (I registered on the deadline) I haven't really found a platform on either side I care for. I want to use my voice, cast my vote, and not have it 'wasted' by not being cast. So how do I vote?
I'm against abortion (the CEO of my client was adopted, so was a close friend of my father, and I have a 7 month old daughter so I can't conceive of abortion being a good thing).
I like the environment and want to take care of it, but I don't want to rely on forgien energy sources either.
I don't like the UN, I think it's lost it's relevance.
I think socialising our medical system will be a huge mistake, and the main culprit of rising health costs is the trial lawyers and frivilous lawsuits (see Overlawyered.com for details.
I think everyone should have the same rights. I think the government should NOT be involved in the institution of marriage at all, it's a religious practice, not a civil one. Calling a domestic union is an insult to religion.
I don't believe in subsidizing farmers to not grow crops, I want legal marjiuana, I want the war on drugs to end.
So how should I vote? And do the new electronic voting machines allow me to write in a candidate if mine ends up to have not been popular enough to get listed on the ballot in my area?
Since some people feel that social or economic background determines voters, here's my stuff: I'll be a first time voter this year. I barely graduated high school and have worked full time since I was 14 years old (50 hour work week
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
About a million years ago, back in 1992, MTV was actually partially reasponible for getting the 1st President Bush out of office.
Way back then, the USA had been involved a war in the Middle East. The folks fighting it weren't quite aware of actually who they were fighting for. At that time, a young politician from Arkansas came to light, and MTV went all out - personal interviews, polls to their audience, even a personal audience with said candidate, with questions from the audience. Sure not all the questions were relevant (boxers or briefs?), but the candidate was brought directly to the audience by a fairly major force in their lives - in terms they could relate to. A young candidate being brought to a young voting constituency in a way that had never been seen before. That candidate's opposition basically shrugged that audience off... and paid the price.
MTV was pretty big back then, but back then they also actually showed videos too. MTV news actually consisted of something more than just record release party announcements. Kurt Loder actually seemed like a real, authoritative, news anchor - or at least sincere one - not some snotty kid in glasses and a t-shirt with a microphone.
The Rock The Vote campaign they (co)sponsored back then was amazingly effective. It brought a huge voting population onto the scene, which would normally be apathetic, and tried to educate them - at least to some extent, even if it was one-sided. These days it's half-hearted at best. Recycled slogans with little or nothing to back them up.
I can almost understand why the younger folks are more apathetic these days. I remember a time when I really thought people with important titles, important positions, and who made important decisions were people to be respected and listened to. Now it seems more and more evident the world is a global high school for super rich men with unlimited resources to fling poo at each other, and the only thing we little bitty humans can do is say...
"Damn. It smells like shit in here."
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
This is what is frustrating me.
Being informed enough to want to voice your political opinion is the goal that we should be shooting for.
Someones level of motivation and their level of knowledge have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I could be 100% for or against a particular candidate for, by your standards even, "a well informed reason". But just don't think it matters if I vote. Perhaps the couple of elections I witnessed, the candidate I would have voted for, had I voted, got elected so I don't think I need to vote. These are the people that SHOULD VOTE. They have an opinion, they ARE informed, they just don't think their vote counts or matters. You and I know this isn't true, and we're trying to INFORM THEM that it isn't true. Why is convincing people that their vote matters a bad thing?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I take no responsibility for any spelling mistakes in the above post.
So you're arguing that the sender (Toby Keith vs. Luigi) is more important than the message itself?
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
It's rather obvious that someone who already plans on voting isn't going to gain any additional motivation from the ads (of course, even thats arguable. You can re-inforce something someone already knows to ensure they follow through.) The people already motivated to vote are NOT the people these ads target. They are targeting people WITH and opion that DONT plan on voting. The two are mutually exclusive.
1) You CAN be informed and vote.
2) You CAN be UNinformed and vote.
3) You CAN be UNinformed, and not vote.
4) You CAN be informed, and not vote.
those who are "uninformed of the issues" are those who are likely not to vote regardless of motivation. These ads, and other "your vote counts" messages are targeted at those who ARE INFORMED but lack motivation. Those that fall into the 4th category are the people these ads truely target.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I take no responsibility for any spelling mistakes in the above post.