Slashdot Mirror
Voters In Many States Must Register By October 6
Will F. Johnston writes "Voters in AK, AR, AZ, CO, DC, FL, GA, HI, IN, KY, LA, MI, MS, OH, PA, TN, TX, and VA must register to vote by tomorrow, October 6, in order to vote in November. Other deadlines coming up soon: IL and NM are October 7. MT is Oct. 6, but you can do same-day registration at the elections office. UT is also Oct. 6, but you can register in person until the 20th."
Hulk for President!
... ;-)
Vote here for the SMASHING Big Green Guy because you don't want to make him angry - you wouldn't like him when he is angry
only register and vote if you have an intelligent vote to cast!
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Your vote is not restricted to just two candidates, and your vote is not like a bet on a sporting event. If you pick the winner, you don't get anything.
... but the lady kept asking for my name.
What kind of shitty vote-rigging software are they using?! November is over three weeks away ffs!
Requiem for the American Dream
Comment removed based on user account deletion
sneaky politicians!
Kibo for President!
If you look at the history of the American democracy, there have been hyjinx in literally EVERY election since the start. There are stories of candidates sending wagons to the barrooms, and giving whisky to anyone who would vote for him. Registration is meant to curb the old "wheel them across town to vote again" trick. The problem isn't registration, it's general voter apathy. The thing about democracy is that the system only works if everyone votes. Luckly, we have layered upon the democracy a representative government, wherein you pick a good guy from your local area to represent you. The problem of course is that the good guy is most likely going to be more than 50% financed by corporations rather than individuals. Not always the case but often. Such is the state of affairs. 99% of the money in the hands of 1% of the population does that. The Republicans have moved from favoring the representatives to blantant corporatism--making corporations the government. It has been pointed out that this is exactly what happened in the 30's in Italy. It's affected the balance of America, because previously the subjugation of democracy has led to smaller government. Now, with democracy down AND a larger government (specifically homoland security), the political stability of the country is much lower. Now, we still have the 3 tiers, and not everyone in congress and senate has been bought by the immortality lobby yet. And really, the most important thing to you should be your local area. So, if you're going to worry about it, worry about local issues first, and move up as you go. Local can also mean on the internet, in your local network area (IE, your regular habitat). Be a leader and see the world change around you. Be a follower, and you'll see it change, but probably not to your liking.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
That's a rather stupid statement in a number of ways. For one, of course the US isn't a pure Democracy. It was never set up that way. It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. There are a lot of democratic traditions, but the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. So whining that the US isn't a "real" Democracy is dumb. Of course it isn't. It never has been, and never will be barring the replacement of the Constitution.
As for the fully informed part, well that's what the grandparent was talking about, where you start your dangerous slide in to denying the right to vote. What constituents "fully informed"? You can never know everything about a candidate, so how much do you have to know to be "fully informed"? There is no good way to measure it and you'll find that in history such things like voter tests were used to prevent minorities form voting.
The other problem with that it a lot of it comes down to opinion. Many people seem to think that if you learn all about McCain and Obama, there is no way you could consider voting for McCain. Same thing was brought up with Bush/Kerry. I believe it was Janeane Garofalo who said "I believe anyone who would vote for Bush has a brain defect." Well, if you hold that belief that when someone is "informed" they could only vote one certain way, that means that you've just taken away the freedom to vote for who you want. "Oh sorry, you can't vote because you don't want to vote for candidate X. Anyone who's fully informed would want to vote for candidate X so we can't let you vote."
Freedom implies a lot of things, and one of those things is the freedom to make the wrong choice. If you truly have freedom of choice in your candidates, that freedom must extend to choosing one who isn't good. This is especially true since often what is "good" or "right" is largely a matter of opinion. I may believe something is good and you may disagree.
That probably works ok for a state with such a small population, but would not work for any state with more than one congressional representative.
I always thought the bigger barrier was the poll hours. Washington is mostly mail ballot now. I usually mail in my vote a couple weeks early.
VOTE SAXON
Lots of big battleground states.I know its cliche, but you can't bitch if you don't get involved.
We may be labeled ass backwards, but I think we have this one right. Registration seems to really screw with potential voters.
Wow, I did not know this and I just thought that the whole USA requires this registration.
Which I have never really understood due to the following reason:
Here in Finland, the only thing you need to do to be able to vote, is to bring some kind of identification with you when you go to vote.( You are notified in advance by mail of your right to vote. )
In my opinion, every obstacle which one can take away from the voting process is a good thing.
Why not?
* It's an endorsement of democracy and small-r republican government, systems which have clearly failed in that they promote majoritarian tyranny and lowest-common-denominator rule.
* Your vote doesn't matter, no matter how much Puffy says it does. No single vote does. Sure, in the aggregate, they count, but the actual implication to one person not voting is non-existent.
* Even if enough people don't vote, enough to alter the outcome of an election, that's a good thing. People pay a lot of attention to turnout numbers. If there's a significant drop in the number of voters over previous elections, that structural criticism is worth more than your vote would likely be.
* When you vote, you're accepting the idea that everyone's vote is, and should be, equal, when clearly it's not. Think about it this way: 1/2 the people in this country are, definitionally, of below average intelligence, and even the average isn't that great. We wouldn't let those people make decisions about science or technology, because they simply don't have the necessary knowledge base to do so. Why let them on political matters? Are they less effected by science and tech matters than they are politics? Few enough people have put enough effort into forming a coherent personal political philosophy, fewer still have gone beyond that to keep abreast of what's going on in the world around them. That's not necessarily a criticism, not everyone has time for keeping up on whatever dumbass thing Biden or Obama say on any given day, they have lives to lead and kids to raise and bills to pay and shit. Some people's votes are worth more than others. They just are. We recognize that not everyone's opinions are equal in every other facet of our existence. That we don't in politics is to the detriment of us all.
* If you don't vote, I will give you $20 (offer is void where prohibited).
Because, well you know, nobody would show up with 100 of their mates at every voting booth in the county/state to stack an election would they ?
It only encourages them.
Property is theft.
Sounds like someone's been watching this video and didn't go to the end...
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Vote XENU! (Marcabian Hard Party)
Your theatans demand it!
http://xenu08.info/
People do not vote on the laws directly. Rather, they elect a body of people who then vote on the laws. It's fine to like a different system, but you have to understand that the US is a Republic and is working as intended. It was never set up to be a direct Democracy and as I said, you'd have to replace the Constitution before that could happen. You'll note that people don't even elect the president, rather each state votes for which candidate they'd like, then sends electors to actually vote for the president.
Regardless, if you don't like the system, you probably need to go find another country. I'm not sure if there are any direct Democracies out there, but the US isn't one and it would be almost impossible to turn it in to one. As I noted it is a Constitutional Federal Republic, meaning that there is a constitution which is higher than any other law. Since the Constitution specifies that it is a Federal Republic, well you'd basically have to eliminate the Constitution to change it and that would be extremely difficult.
The US was specifically designed to that people don't directly vote on the big issues, and so that it takes more than just a simple majority, of people or representatives, to make changes to the Constitution. It's fine to not like that system, however it is important to understand it, if you live in the nation governed by it.
Is there a way to use RockTheVote without having to give them my email (that they admit they will spam)?
Here in Spain we don't have to register anywhere to vote, you are automatically registered to be able to vote in your nearest electoral college. Of course, elections are on saturday or sunday, so everyone can go and vote.
Also, we don't use any kind of voting machines, and votes are counted by randomly selected people, who, in exchange, are paid about 70â by the state for their services.
Well, that is one part of the problem. Another huge problem IMO is that we don't have a house that's more proportional/based on consensus. 90% rule. 90% of the population is just dumb. What's more, this is distributed geographically evenly. (And for anyone who wants to chime in with a comment about the hippie blue states vs. the redneck red states, I'd like to remind you that blue states can be just as dogmatic.) Which means that in any house based on geography (use that word loosely *cough* districting *cough*) you're generally going to have to appeal to idiots.
One thing we need is a, say, 500 seat 3rd house. Nationwide vote. Approval voting or somesuch. 500 guys with the most votes get in. Then, to sweeten the deal, we could institute a 95% passing rule. If the bill doesn't have 95% affirmative votes, it dies the death it deserves. Actually, that'd be a good rule for the other 2 houses as well.
Then we could really vote for someone we want. Rather than some guy we just settle for because he happens to live (supposedly) nearby us. I understand the desire to have geographical based representation, and I'm not advocating removing that. But it isn't enough on its own.
This won't ever happen in our current system. But we need to start thinking about this stuff. Once our current system crashes, we're gonna have to replace it with something. And how did our current system start? By a lot of smart guys sitting around talking about their wishlists for government.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
Isn't it interesting as the newsmedia carries thousands of reminders each month about the DTV switchover that is half a year away, they only do a handful of register-to-vote reminders, usually only during the last week before it's too late?
Gotta love priorities in this country.
I'm glad that everyone has to vote in Belgium by law. Now if only the politicians would cooperate...
The situation is different in the US, because people in the US are not required to have a unique ID card or tell the government where they live. Since votes are secret, once someone has voted you can't retract the vote when it is found that they voted at more than one polling place. Consequently there has to be some form of registration beforehand to make sure that nobody can vote more than once. In Europe you're typically assigned to a polling place by address and the poll workers have a list of all voters who can vote at that polling place. Considering the implications of personal ID cards and registration requirements and that you have to register whenever you move in Europe, the American system is neither more work nor more bureaucratic.
Voter apathy isn't necessarily the problem.
Western European democracies routinely have an election turnout percentage in the 80's or 90's.
One of the result is a large representation for socialist, extreme left-wing and extreme right wing parties. In the US, this segment of the population by and large doesn't bother to vote.
I'm not saying the poor, angry, permanently unemployed or xenophobic segments of the population should be prevented from voting, but before you actively start encouraging them, be sure you know what you're getting into.
In my opinion, the voter turnout isn't the biggest problem, but the reputation of the voters' representatives. Congress is almost universally despised by the electorate, and this more than anything else is undermining democracy.
Something needs to be done to fix this, both in the behavior of congress (get rid of all lobbyists for example), and in the rhetoric of the media and certain politicians, who blame everything that's wrong, of perceived to be wrong on congress,
It was clearly written by a Democrat. A good Republican should be doing his or her best to discourage or even prevent new voters from registering. That trick of using recent mortgage foreclosures to challenge voter registrations on the grounds that the voter no longer has a clear home address... sheer genius, my hat is off to whatever GOP'er thought up something that low.
I piss off bigots.
You don't need a personal ID card, just any valid identification. Driver's license is fine.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
A unique ID would enable "unregistered" voting without a residence database. A residence database with assigned polling places is the other option. No unique ID and no residence database means you have to take other measures to ensure no double-voting. In the US that is done by voter registration and purging duplicates and ineligibles before the election. In third world countries they mark a finger of the people who have voted, using an ink which cannot be washed off.
Okay, I live in another country (Canada) also in the midst of a federal election. It was called a few weeks ago, and it will be over before the US election has finished (Oct. 14th). How does the US voter registration thing work? Here in Canada we typically get a "voter registration card" mailed to our home with our identification information on it and the address and date of the poll and advance polls. The personal information is obtained from our tax returns, although it is something you have to opt-in to by checking a box at the time the tax form is submitted. Then we show up at the polls on election day or advance polls with that paper card in hand. But if we don't have a card, all we need is some government-issued photo ID (e.g., drivers license) and some proof of residence (e.g., a power bill with our name and address printed on it), and then you can vote. It's a different, slower line at the poll, but routine.
Are you telling me that in the US, if people don't do this "registration" thing a month in advance and they show up the day of the election, they won't be allowed to vote in some states? Huh?
Mccain 08!
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
Here in Oklahoma your registration application must be postmarked by this Friday to be elegible for the general election on Nov 4. If you live in Oklahoma, you can check your voter registration records with the state here, and download and print out a registration application here.
For other states, I'd suggest getting information by visting this site. Google also has a nice site set up, but it doesn't seem to have my state's polling information loaded yet. Perhaps you will have better luck. There's a new Will.i.am youtube video promoting it too. I'd link it, but I'm at work. Search youtube for "5 Friends" and you should find it easily.
Legitimate question. Currently I do not see a real reason to consider McCain a legitimate option. What groups could benefit from a potential McCain presidency?
> No, half of the people in this country are at or below median intelligence.
IQ is based on the assumption that intelligence distribution is normal. In the normal distribution, the average is the same as the median, and yes, half the people in the world have below-average intelligence. That does not mean that half the people in this country have below average intelligence, because IQ averages vary by country. If you look at the table of IQs by country (which are averages, BTW), you'll see that the US has the average IQ of 98, meaning that slightly more than half the people in this country have below-average intelligence: 55.3%. By comparison, in Equatorial Guinea, where the average IQ is 59, 99.7% of the population has below average intelligence. You can get the numbers by calculating the error function with this calculator, 59 is 41/15(SD)=2.73(3) standard deviations.
On what planet? Most people are idiots and have no business voting. If they were to vote, the government of this country would be worse for everyone.
In fact, the thing about democracy is that the system only works until the poor realize that instead of working for a living they can get rich quick by voting to take money from the rich.
I don't suppose that you have ever read Plato's discussion of democracy in The Republic?
Remember: This election isn't only for president. Many congress seats are up too.
If you disliked your congressman's vote on the bailout plan as much as you say you did, go register and vote him out next month. Your vote can make a difference there
It's a toss up between the Hulk and tacos.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I would agree that part of the problem is apathetic voters. However, I don't think everyone should vote, only those who care enough to know what is going on. Part of the problem is the people who start paying attention sometime in October and decide who to vote on based on what they learn between then and election day. Voter registration should be easy, but it should not necessarily be convenient. It should be something that the voter decides to do and then goes and does. Not something that happens when somebody reminds you to do when you get the picture for your driver's license.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
To "fix" the behavior of Congress, term limits would go a long way. Surely most everyone has realized that you're on your best behavior in the first year of a job, and then questionable work practices become second nature over time.
Also, virtually the only truly competitive races are ones in which the current rep is retiring. Better qualified competition = more choices = more interest from the voting public = better representation.
Term limits, yay!
Gets my vote.
do you really think the DoHS is going to go away if obama wins? you're crazy if you do.
the only thing that's going to happen on the rights front of this mess is that obama is going to further degrade the second amendment. he's not going to repeal the patriot act or even the dmca for that matter.
We are a republic, not a democracy. That extra layer, of which you speak is what makes us a republic. Republics work well, democracies are terrible - at least according to Plato.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
I agree with you. Spain neither require registration.
In New Jersey, you can register after you are dead. So if you miss registering for this election, there are plenty more to vote in.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
This chocolate dipped Opie looking motherfucker or Jesus's Uncle? That's a choice?
Both are bought and paid for. Beyond the scripted sound bites delivered by the 'news', any objective look at them reveals very little substantial difference.
We already lost the election.
It seems to me that you are likely to find that the issues that pass with near unanimity are the worst ones. The only thing dumber than a partisan bill is a bipartisan bill.
Best behavior? Freshmen Congressmen get no committee assignments, aren't recognized by either the majority or minority leadership to speak in debate and are very lucky if they figure out how to introduce a bill before they reach their first anniversary of being sworn in.
Under term limits, the only ones with any institutional memory whatsoever in Congress will be lobbyists. Which will be the legislators that have been term-limited out, because they've been there, made contacts and know how things work.
Voters in AK, AR, AZ, CO, DC, FL, GA, HI, IN, KY, LA, MI, MS, OH, PA, TN, TX, and VA must register to vote by tomorrow, October 6, in order to vote in November. Other deadlines coming up soon: IL and NM are October 7. MT is Oct. 6, but you can do same-day registration at the elections office. UT is also Oct. 6, but you can register in person until the 20th.
This is what we call "States with unthinkably poor IT services".
Seriously, does it take a month to process a voter registration form? I'd imagine that it can be done in near real time. A month seems to imply that there is a totally manual process of registering voters. Clearly, a semi-automated process could greatly enhance the situation AND save a ton of money.
And note that both "very blue" and "very red" states are in the mix here, as well as states that are somewhat in the middle. Rich states and poor states. It's all over the place.
The common thread between these states: antiquated IT services, costing the states big money.
Welcome to the 1930's.
1) lower voter registration requirements necessary in order to vote
2) eliminate corporate donations, limit personal donations on an annual basis.
This won't solve voter apathy, but it will curb some of the more egregious examples of buying politicians and enable more people to vote. Other countries have done it.
They don't do this very well. After I moved between states, I was told by a family member that I was still on the rolls for my old state. If I'd felt like driving two hours I could have voted in both states.
They also do nothing to check that you are who you claim when you get to the booth, so if you know someone who should be voting in a district, you could go in, sign their name, and vote.
As a fellow North Dakotan I would just like to say:
Woo, ND was actually mentioned on slashdot.
Unless he's filed his intention to run. Otherwise the vote isn't counted.
Western European democracies routinely have an election turnout percentage in the 80's or 90's.
Which Western European democracies exactly? Netherland usually has a voter turnout percentage closer to 50% (and even lower than that for European and local elections). In Belgium, on the other hand, voting is compulsory, so turnout tends to be over 90%.
One of the result is a large representation for socialist, extreme left-wing and extreme right wing parties. In the US, this segment of the population by and large doesn't bother to vote.
That's just apathy in a different form. They're required to vote, but don't care about any of the big moderate parties, so they vote for something extreme.
Lots of voters have been dropped from the voter rolls. You might want to check if your name is on that list of people who were purged, because if so, you won't be able to vote.
And today is the last day to fix it...
Come back when you learn basic statistics. Your individual vote is practically worthless. The odds of being the deciding vote in a national election isn't any better than winning the lottery. Even if your candidate wins by one vote, there still is a good chance that the president will act differently than promised and enact policy that would harm you anyway! Trying to determine policy by voting is like trying to make money by playing the lottery. You could do a hell of a lot better by using your time and energy doing something that actually has a good chance of making a difference. Voting gives you a good feeling that your voice is being heard, but how can you be heard when 100,000,000 other people are all talking at once? Democracy feels good but with a country as big as the U.S. you can take the outcome of elections as given.
Creative Demolition
We are a republic, not a democracy. That extra layer, of which you speak is what makes us a republic.
No, it's the lack of a monarch that makes you a republic. And lots of republics are democracies.
Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, we used to have such a body... The Senate used to be selected by the state legislatures they represent. These "statesmen" were usually considered some of the wisest and judicious people in their states. They were given 6 year terms so their position wouldn't be dependent upon the whims of the fickle populace.
These days, the Senate is just another popularity contest where statesmanship has gone out the window in favor of pandering...
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Eh, I'm pretty sure it's being run by "philosophers" (i.e. aristocratic elites accountable to the people) that makes for a republic, which is the ideal society. But it's been a long time, so I could be wrong.
I defer to you if you've got some kind of expertise or knowledge...
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Okay, I know, there's only 30 million of us up here in the frigid North, but in Canada, you have to register to vote, but can register as late as on election day, if necessary.
Our federal elections are run by a single national agency called "Elections Canada", who fills church basements and hockey arenas with efficient volunteers on election day. The whole thing is a well oiled machine and we know the election results by bedtime.
I'm not sure what my point was. Oh yeah: you can have registered voters without leaving people out, thanks to a bit of organization and planning.
...allows us to walk in on voting day. Not only that, but if I'm registered, I can say "Yeah, he's with me!" and my friend gets registered on the spot too - no proof of address needed. It's like going to a popular nightclub. Except all the employees are over 55, and you're in an elementary school gym.
The Netherlands usually has a voter turnout percentage in the 80's or 90's, pretty much the same as Belgium, except obviously in elections for the EU, which are popular only in Belgium
http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout_pop2.cfm