Did You Vote? Now Your Friends May Know (nytimes.com)

A look at VoteWithMe and OutVote, two new political apps that are trying to use peer pressure to get people to vote. From a story: The apps are to elections what Zillow is to real estate -- services that pull public information from government records, repackage it for consumer viewing and make it available at the touch of a smartphone button. But instead of giving you a peek at house prices, VoteWithMe and OutVote let you snoop on which of your friends voted in past elections and their party affiliations -- and then prod them to go to the polls by sending them scripted messages like "You gonna vote?" "I don't want this to come off like we're shaming our friends into voting," said Naseem Makiya, the chief executive of OutVote, a start-up in Boston. But, he said, "I think a lot of people might vote just because they're frankly worried that their friends will find out if they didn't."

Whom Americans vote for is private. But other information in their state voter files is public information; depending on the state, it can include details like their name, address, phone number and party affiliation and when they voted. The apps try to match the people in a smartphone's contacts to their voter files, then display some of those details. The data's increasing availability may surprise people receiving messages nudging them to vote -- or even trouble them, by exposing personal politics they might have preferred to keep to themselves. Political campaigns have for years purchased voter files from states or bought national voter databases from data brokers, but the information has otherwise had little public exposure outside of campaign use. Now any app user can easily harness such data to make inferences about, and try to influence, their contacts' voting behavior.

Comments

I will vote

[DarkRookie2]

I will vote when my options aren't a bowl of shit looking itself in the mirror.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

so never, then.

Re:I will vote

[SirSlud]

In other words, things are generally good enough for you. Lucky person.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Your options are whatever you make, but 96% of the voting public prefers to be spoon fed and will believe what the TV tells them to believe. You're not fighting the system, you're fighting each other.

There is no choice, you either vote your way out of this, or you take what you're given.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

So that means you're going to get more involved in the political process and work to put people you feel more qualified on the ballot then, yes?

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to you, bowls of shit will keep getting nominated, because they know they can win.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Choose between eating this bowl of smashed glass, or this plate full of sloppy diarrhea.

The only reason to not choose one or the other is because you are doing well. Only rich successfull people would decline to choose between eating glass or liquid crap. Lucky them.

Re:I will vote

[cayenne8]

Everyone that can VOTE, please do.

Just remember this year, that due to all the conflict and divisive nature of politics, that to ensure we keep things civil at the polls:

1. Republicans, vote today at your normal places.

2. Democrats, vote tomorrow at your normal places.

This way we can ensure that we keep things civil at the polling sites and lessen any chance of fights and/or riots.

Pass the word around so that everyone knows.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I realized that a couple years ago and moved.

Captcha: frozen

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the great thing about gerrymandering: they both do it (usually working together, as it turns out: it's better to guarantee you have seats that risk the whims of the voters), meaning that even if I were to move, I'm pretty much guaranteed to end up in a place where the districts are also gerrymandered to hell and back. I would definitely have to move out of the state to have a shot at being able to cast a meaningful vote: there's not a single competitive district here.

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I will vote when they offer a blowjob.

Re:I will vote

[DarkRookie2]

I mean.
I do vote on the policies and stuff
Like the 1% sales tax increase for public transit.
Its just my choices for people are DEM, REP, or some third party I have never heard of.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

this is exactly the type of shit that trump's sheep would do. and it's exactly what some republican election officials have done... publish the wrong fucking date in strong-democrat districts. so fuck off, hoser.

Re:I will vote

[DarkRookie2]

As oppose to what?
Straight Dem?
They are just as bad

Hope for a mix that will do nothing to do anything.

I mean what are my options.

Re:I will vote

[TomGreenhaw]

If all you know about a candidate is what you see on TV or read online, then they really look like the worst people in the world.

Try actually meeting some of these people. Many are not as bad as they are portrayed. That said, some of them are truly psychopathic megalomaniacs. You will know those by their actions.

As long as people choose not to vote, they will get politicians picked by others - generally those supported by the greedy.

Re:I will vote

[HornWumpus]

Vote Gridlock!

This year, that means Ds for the house. But only a few, so it can easily flip back.

Re:I will vote

[Marxist Hacker 42]

As if I needed another reason to vote the day the ballots come out- to avoid getting hit by text messages from these apps.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I am certain that what you research online on their voting activities and such is much more realistic of who you are voting for than how they might act in person. These people build a career out of convincing people to trust them. The trick is, do not trust them by default. Look at hard facts, that will tell you what they are about.

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

And thanks to the people who vote, each bowl of shit will be able to win simply by claiming they stink a little less than the other bowl of shit.

Re:I will vote

[omnichad]

In that case, register Democrat and make sure your voice is heard in the primaries. Still better than doing nothing.

Re: I will vote

[omnichad]

I guess that is less divisive than kissing babies.

Re:I will vote

[omnichad]

While true, sociopaths are often very charming. You have to back that up with research.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget:
Democrats, vote today at your normal polling places.

Anyone with a red hat, you need to vote next month as it's national red hat month and you'll get twice the voting power if you save it up.

Re:I will vote

[AmiMoJo]

Interesting graph on the BBC today, illustrating the amount raised from individual donations by the Rs and Ds: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/...

The Democrats got about twice as much from individuals this year. Normally it's quite close.

Unfortunately they don't show overall campaign donations. I wonder if corporate donations bring the Republicans up to the same level.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Copied and pasted from a post from Monday, no doubt...

Re:I will vote

[Aristos Mazer]

You did not put "JOKE" on this post. Without that, this is really not funny. We have serious problems with disinformation being circulated keeping people from the polls. This kind of borderline plausible post is exactly the kind of thing that other people are legitimately posting. In fact, maybe you were serious and others just flagged your post as "Funny".

Please, please, please use "" and "" tags on posts like these. It does not lesson the humor. It does lesson the confusion and strife.

Re:I will vote

[Aristos Mazer]

That should be "" and "" tags.

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone is stupid enough to confuse a joke, no less one as blatantly obvious as this, from reality regarding this subject... Their vote deserves not to be counted.

In fact, I'll go one better; they aught to be rounded up and sterilized.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't vote because I don't feel like either party has given me reason to (and both of the third parties are morons). I feel, and with good reason, that I've been screwed over by both Republican action and liberal ideology over the past two years. I have no one supporting me, so why the hell should I support them? 'Just go and vote' people say? Well, vote for whom? It's hard for me to see the point, or why it is even worth the time.

If either party really wanted my vote, they'd act like it. Thus far, they haven't. When they count the number of registered voters who did not bother, that's my vote. If the parties can't figure it out, chances are they don't want to.

Re:I will vote

[dgatwood]

1. Republicans, vote today at your normal places.
2. Democrats, vote tomorrow at your normal places.

No, no, today is *Independent* voting day. Republican day was yesterday. Sorry you missed it. Better luck in two years. :-D

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

If people are that stupid, they shouldn't be voting.
The real world doesn't have kid-gloves ya big vagina.

Re:I will vote

[cayenne8]

You did not put "JOKE" on this post. Without that, this is really not funny. We have serious problems with disinformation being circulated keeping people from the polls. This kind of borderline plausible post is exactly the kind of thing that other people are legitimately posting.

Oh come on....

If anyone is really stupid enough to fall for that and not know it is a joke, then I'm wondering if they are even smart enough to go vote without hurting themselves along the way to the polling place.

Re:I will vote

[Aristos Mazer]

It happens all the time: someone stupid believes the post, then reposts it. Enough people repost it, even smart people start to think it is a real thing. Eventually, it gets picked up by someone reputable. Alternatively, someone reputable posts it as a joke, and so it gets taken seriously, bypassing the usual "is this serious?" sanity checks. This sort of disinformation campaign is exactly what happens when people announce "the polling places have moved" or "Late rules change! You must have such-and-such specific ID to vote!" (Both of those are real-world things that happen pretty much every election somewhere and do cause people to miss voting.)

It isn't the intellect of the first person who falls for it that is the problem -- it's the aggregate information environment's corruption that is the problem.

Re:I will vote

[Aristos Mazer]

Real world example that has been making the rounds: "If you vote, you will be required to serve jury duty. If your job does not provide vacation time, you should avoid voting or you will end up having to choose between losing your job to serve on a jury or going to jail for failure to show up for jury duty." Haha... who would fall for that? Turns out a not-insignificant percent of the population. It sounds plausible, and people don't always have the ability to fact check it. If it gets enough traction among your friends network, it becomes true.

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

must be the extra cash freed up from all the hand outs they get

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad news: we cut the bowel
Good news: still full of shit

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're stupid enough to follow whatever you read online, then you're probably dumb enough that you shouldn't vote.

Re:I will vote

[djinn6]

One major problem with doing research is how many candidates there are. I think I hand 30 people on my ballot, including 5 or 6 judges. It would take me at least several hours each to look at their case history and check whether they made rulings according to the law (which is my preference), assuming I can even understand the laws involved.

I wish there was an option to forego voting in some elections and in exchange for extra voting power in the ones I actually care about, or even just extra votes in randomly assigned elections. Spending a few hours deciding on a judge isn't that bad if I had 30 votes instead of 1.

Re:I will vote

[djinn6]

Given how some of the richest companies on earth are vehemently anti-Trump, overall funding is heavily skewed towards the Democrats. Remember, in 2016 Clinton actually raised 84% more funds than Trump.

Re:I will vote

[DNS-and-BIND]

We need fewer stupid people voting. In fact, most of the problems we have today is stupid people being allowed to vote. If anyone is stupid enough to fail to recognize a joke that's been circulating for decades, we're better off without those people determining our government.

Re: I will vote

[registrations_suck]

Your post should be tagged [dumbass]

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

People are definitely that stupid and voting. Need look no further than current fuckface in the oval office.

Re:I will vote

[Aristos Mazer]

The XKCD "10,000" effect works for both good things and bad: https://xkcd.com/1053/

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol wtf is wrong with you Americans

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's agree to disarm then. Get the money out of politics!

Re:I will vote

[TomGreenhaw]

People would sell their votes. Money corrupts politics :-(

BTW, I go on the local bar association to get judge info and recommendations. It honestly takes me about 10 minutes. Usually there are only a handful of bad judges and I either print a sheet or remember to name to vote no on retention.

Re:I will vote

[cayenne8]

Real world example that has been making the rounds: "If you vote, you will be required to serve jury duty. If your job does not provide vacation time, you should avoid voting or you will end up having to choose between losing your job to serve on a jury or going to jail for failure to show up for jury duty." Haha... who would fall for that? Turns out a not-insignificant percent of the population. It sounds plausible, and people don't always have the ability to fact check it. If it gets enough traction among your friends network, it becomes true.

You know, here's something "whacky" I've always done....I actually called and checked with places to verify "what someone told me" or "what someone heard".

I've gone to the state's website and it was pretty plain where my polling place was and the hours, etc.

As far as jury duty, well, they do in many states (mine included) get your name from registering to vote as well as drivers licenses, etc.

Again a quick call or look on the state/county (or parish in my case) website will let you know what happens if you get called in for jury duty.

Have people gotten today where they just blindly believe what friends tell them or what they read on "social media".....and why the heck are people putting so much faith in social media ?

Geez, this is not rocket surgery.

And it is sad that people are advocating that you cannot make a joke about most any subject.....that we must limit our humor, sarcasm, etc....in case someone might get hurt or misunderstand something....

Re:I will vote

[Aristos Mazer]

> that we must limit our humor, sarcasm, etc

*I DID NOT REQUEST LIMITS.* That is a complete mischaracterization. I asked only that you flag a joke as a joke. You can make the joke, just please don't leave it hanging out there without the context that guarantees everyone knows that it is a joke. That is not a limit on the humor you can make. Please refrain from making false claims about me. When there are malicious actors deliberately working to mislead as many people as possible, I do think it is reasonable to go a bit further to not aid those malicious actors.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Meepsheep's Law.

Never forget, the concept of "bronies" started off as a joke. This is why you have to be careful when you joke around on the Internet, because eventually someone WILL be dumb enough to take you seriously.

Re:I will vote

[fustakrakich]

Yes, well, some people like to use Poe's Law for maximum effect. I just can't sympathize too much for the easily fooled who don't want to take the initiative to verify the things they see and hear and would rather live by their own personal biases.

Re:I will vote

[cayenne8]

*I DID NOT REQUEST LIMITS.* That is a complete mischaracterization. I asked only that you flag a joke as a joke.

A joke ceases to be funny...if you have to explain it is a joke.

Any reasonably intelligent person would know that it was outlandish and therefore , a joke.

Re: I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Aristos didnâ(TM)t ask you to explain the joke, just flag as a joke. Big difference.

Re:I will vote

[Anonymous Coward]

*I DID NOT REQUEST LIMITS.* That is a complete mischaracterization. I asked only that you flag a joke as a joke.

A joke ceases to be funny...if you have to explain it is a joke.

Any reasonably intelligent person would know that it was outlandish and therefore , a joke.

The more common patten is that insecure people will see that it is outlandish and "conclude" therefore that you must be so stupid while they are so smart.

This mentality and the inability to reply to what was actually said (as opposed to what the reader assumes must have been meant) are the two main things destroying the utility of this site as a place for real discussion. I've seen some claim that the shift in subject matter away from techie topics towards political ones (often "SJW" is used) caused this decline. I think the owners are merely adjusting their content to appeal to the change in audience, same as any media company would do.

Re:I will vote

[Agripa]

Not voting is the equivalent of endorsing the status quo. So you just voted straight Republican. Hope you're okay with that!

Voting is the equivalent of endorsing the status quo.

Re:I will vote

[Agripa]

In that case, register Democrat and make sure your voice is heard in the primaries. Still better than doing nothing.

It is not better than doing nothing because it is a waste of time. As the Democrats aptly demonstrated in their last presidential primary by allowing their internal emails to leak, the result of the primary election is determined beforehand.

I voted

[rsilvergun]

I'm in a state with vote by mail, so I did it weeks ago.

Still can't get my friends to vote. They're convinced it gets you jury duty

Re:I voted

[93 Escort Wagon]

1) At least in my state, just the fact you have a drivers license means you can get jury duty

2) Why are people so against jury duty? Yes, it's inconvenient but so what? We need more intelligent people willing to participate.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like you need a better group of friends, because they're excessively stupid, and very likely selfish and self-centered, entitled, and so on. They want all the benefits of living in the United States but refuse to accept the responsibilities that make those benefits possible. Really, your 'friends' need to be slapped.

Re:I voted

[DivineKnight]

2) - I've heard the pay is particularly poor?

Re: I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

I have health issues, and better things to do than to sit locked with a bunch of stupid minorities and lesbians whole day long. Fuck off.

Re: I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a letter demanding that I appear for jury duty.

I got out of it *drum roll*, because I'm not an American citizen. Obviously voting is not what got me on that mailing list.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

The per diem is a joke, but the actual pay is knowing you have access to a jury of your peers should the need arise.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury pay is beyond poor. It's pathetic. Plus, there's the uncertainty involved. Trial could take a day, several days, weeks, or even longer. Sure, one's job is supposed to be guaranteed upon return, but that doesn't always happen. Even if one can return after a week or more, the financial impact in the meantime could be devastating.

Also, there are privacy issues with serving. The defendant may be privy to much personal details of the jurors, and may seek more. Then, there's the matter of juror identities possibly being revealed after the trail.

It's no wonder many jurors are either unemployed, or work in a government union job (ie. public school teacher), or are retired. The typical working person can't afford to be away from their job on jury duty earning prison-like wages for more than a day or two. Hence, many seek to avoid serving (the rich, who interestingly do get paid well: judge, lawyers, etc).

Re:I voted

[JeffOwl]

It pays about $30 / day where I live. But then my employer continues to pay my full time salary while I'm on Jury Duty, so it just means free lunch. So I'd take as much Jury Duty as I could get. Unfortunately I've been called a few times but dismissed during voir dire every time except once, when the defendant did not show up.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Jurors are compelled to work for free, or to accept a pittance.

It takes days out of your life doing things that do not profit you and that you do not enjoy.

You bear the weight of responsibility for making the right choice, which can cause terrible anxiety in some people, and also guilt after the fact.

Sometimes you get put on really horrible cases, like child porn or whatever, where you have to hear stories, view evidence, and think about things that are horrifying and harmful to the mind.

So, in sum, it sucks. It is quite clear why people don't want to do it, even though they want it done.

Re:I voted

[93 Escort Wagon]

Unfortunately I've been called a few times but dismissed during voir dire every time except once, when the defendant did not show up.

I got bumped during noir dire as well - prosecutor didn't like that I said I couldn't convict someone if I thought the particular law under which a person was charged was morally unjust (which was not applicable to the case we were on, and I went to lengths to make it clear that I wasn't referring to it).

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost had a rant about this, but I'll trim it and put it here.

Lawyers don't want people who can afford to think over the evidence and come to an educated decision. They want people who will act rashly and be easily manipulated. Like people with hourly jobs that will look for excuses to fire them if any time is "wasted" on jury duty (these people also expect that they will have their shifts cycled so that even if they are not fired, they do not get full compensation for their jury duty time).
Since your employer does not try to trim your salary for jury duty days, you can afford to be a juror and no lawyer wants you there.

Really short form, if you aren't afraid of serving as a juror, lawyers will try not call you for a serious case. I'd guess those few times you were seated as an intimidation tactic between the lawyers.

Re:I voted

[Roger W Moore]

Unfortunately I've been called a few times but dismissed during voir dire every time except once

That's the problem The justice system might need more intelligent people willing to participate but a lawyer defending a guilty defendant does not want them to participate.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

People have to have something to complain about. Some people like complaining about people complaining about jury duty.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully you mailed more than one ballot.

Re:I voted

[thomn8r]

We need more intelligent people willing to participate.

Which is exactly what trial lawyers and DA's don't want.

Re:I voted

[Binestar]

Ahh, you've heard of Jury Nullification. That generally makes you unsuitable to serve on a Jury.

Re: I voted

[HornWumpus]

If all you got was a unregistered letter, you weren't legally served anyhow. Safe to ignore (in CA anyhow).

Re: I voted

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Voting, driver's license are the two most common ways to get on the list.

Being a property owner and paying property taxes is another.

Re:I voted

[omnichad]

Not unsuitable. Just unlikely to be selected. This is the corollary to the executive branch's selective enforcement. It's an important part of the checks and balances.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unsuitable. Just unlikely to be selected.

It makes you unsuitable in the eyes of the prosecution, who is almost certainly going to make you one of their three free dismissals.

Re:I voted

[omnichad]

If I'm ever asked, I won't lie under oath. But I will say "What's that?" and they can assume whatever they will.

Re:I voted

[Binestar]

I missed a bit of my sarcasm tag there. The Lawyers rate you as unsuitable, not that you're actually unsuitable.

Re: I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds kinda socialist. Isn't that how they do juries in Europe?

Re:I voted

[chispito]

We need more intelligent people willing to participate.

Which is exactly what trial lawyers and DA's don't want.

Uh, so a zero sum game? Rather, DAs want intelligent, consistent jurors so they can make informed decisions on what to prosecute and whether and how to prosecute. DAs really aren't served by a crapshoot like the defense is.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent people DO NOT end up on the jury.

They are wasting their time and will be sent home.

Re:I voted

[eth1]

2) Why are people so against jury duty? Yes, it's inconvenient but so what? We need more intelligent people willing to participate.

You can't be fired for time off for jury duty, but you don't have to be paid, either. There are a ton of people where, if they got stuck on a jury for a week, would be in a world of hurt financially. Can't really blame them. I'm fortunate enough that I do still get salary, so, since I never actually get picked, it's basically a day off where I don't have to answer my cell phone.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never actually been called but being on call is annoying as hell because for a whole month you have no idea whether you'll be able to keep commitments that month.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

wow that is crappy. I don't know if it's a law here in Minnesota but every company I've worked at in Minnesota where I've been called in for jury duty still pays, but it's a swap, the company gets your jury duty money and you get your regular pay. I've been called up several times but only served on a couple of trials, the other times I either wasn't needed or dismissed during selection. But it's improved drastically since my first one. Used to be you'd have to go to the court house and wait around all day. Now it's a call in the morning to check if they need you for a selection pool that day and you do that for a week or until you are on a trial.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Demcracy sucks but it sucks way less than dictatorship.

Re:I voted

[No Longer an AC]

It's good to have a job that continues to pay even if you're absent for jury duty, but I imagine for some people it can be a serious financial burden and that meager pay is not going to make up for it.

I've been fortunate enough to get paid while I've gone downtown to fulfill my jury duty although the last time my boss was clearly not happy about it. (What he didn't know is I was already looking for a new job and even did a phone interview on the drive to the courthouse one day).

The pay was meager enough that it didn't really make up for the hassle of dealing with going to court 3 days in a row. To my amazement they picked me last time.

It was a great experience IMO. The only thing that really sucked is that it ended in a mistrial. I was going to acquit the guy too and I think it was the defense that moved for a mistrial.

The prosecution had convinced me that the defendant wasn't exactly a good upstanding citizen, but they hadn't convinced me he was guilty of the crime with which he was charged and I know at least some other jurors were leaning towards acquittal as well.

It was amusing watching a few people trying to get out of jury duty though. One IT guy said he was in the middle of a huge project and couldn't possibly take time off work. He literally argued he was too important. He was NOT excused.

Another person said he could not render a fair verdict because he had been a victim of vehicle theft and/or just a vehicle break-in. The judge questioned him briefly and did excuse him, but I don't think the judge really believed him.

One of the questions they had already asked us was for a show of hands of everyone who had been the victim of auto theft or vehicle break-in or if someone they knew had been. Nearly every hand in the courtroom went up (including mine).

I thought it was a fairly ridiculous question since that county has one of the highest rates of auto theft in the whole US. They stole my boss's truck that was parked right next to mine a couple months before that. My car has been broken into a few times, but they never thought it was worth stealing the whole thing. Or maybe they couldn't drive a stick.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

it's basically a day off where I don't have to answer my cell phone.

If you have to answer your cell phone then it's not really a day off.

Re: I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

You're damned right you have some health issues. I've counted a couple different psychoses just from your post!

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep - everyone should. This is one of the times when "defining the term" is important. "Jury Nullification" sounds like a scary thing that should be banned. It isn't catchy but I call it "The only possible reason why trial by jury was called out in the constitution - as a check against the system".

Re:I voted

[93 Escort Wagon]

I missed a bit of my sarcasm tag there. The Lawyers rate you as unsuitable, not that you're actually unsuitable.

Don't worry, I interpreted it that way the first time. I realize I'm unlikely to be chosen, but I show up when asked.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently got called to jury duty, which I admittedly didn't serve, as I got a dismissal, also I'm Canadian, not American)

I think my post is still relevant, at least in terms of the stigma associated with the duty/privilege/chore/honor (depending on your own personal views), in my case, they were expecting 3+ weeks plus worth of a trial, in a case they intended on bringing on 14 jurors because high profile, and risk of murders/tampering etc, 45 dollars a day compensation(I would have starved compared to my working wage), and the law only protects you here, that you will keep your job, but the leave is unpaid.

first time in my life I ever thanked the fates I have brain damage due to a motor vehicle collision, as that was enough to exclude my from the whole process.

but to point number two, this day in age, we definitely don't want intelligent people participating, because intelligent people use Facebook and other social media, are often swayed by current happenings, and current happenings often affect current judgement. For example, in the most recent election for our head of state, the prime minister, one of the pivoting debates was whether or not women should be allowed to wear head scarfs, They were grieved to wear them in the first place for fear of violence, and then got grieved to take them off (and social media brought about violence). It's a take the dick up the ass situation no matter what you do, and the reason? they were born into a country with these sort of views and happened to be born a woman. like, is this north America or what? aren't we above this? (well they thought they did, they did everything required to become Canadian, and they still live in fear)

So no, I don't think we need "intelligent" people in juries, I think we need people more in touch with what it means to be human. you know, the type of person whom might like trump because they are middle class, and trump might have some ideas that would make life easier for them; but can ignore the fact that trump hates anybody whom isn't white or straight, but personally not give a shit... and just think people are people. It's rare. The problem is the whole concept of juries is to give a fair trial, to be judged among peers, but an increasing number of people can't even feel the peer aspect because key members of boards that have personal interests control most of what we see officially, and socially people are too afraid of confrontation to question that fucked up view of a family member or a friend.

I agree with your statement number one, I was called for jury duty, and not sure why. I think just your known existence makes you prime meat.

but to statement number two, I just say, all sorts of reasons.. and mostly because it's not convenient, and most of us just want to survive life, hoping to not fuck it up for another. I don't even know what I think about most bad things that happen, mostly because they didn't happen to me. But when I look at myself, I can't understand why somebody would do bad to another, unless there was a reason. and to that end, who am I to say what is right or wrong? if somebody messed with my family, like my kids, id probably have bad thoughts too, not sure if I'd react violently, but hey, I'm not you...

Re:I voted

[djinn6]

There's also that promotion that you won't get this year since you were gone for 3 months.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is exactly why you NEED to search, read, learn about, and then spread the word of JURY NULLIFICATION.
That way YOU can take back some power by JUDGING THE LAW, and EVERY single other part of the process and circumstances including whatever your beliefs are or are not as they might apply to the cases at hand.

JURY NULLIFICATION.

Read about it.
Then be "INTELLIGENT" play dumb and sneak yourself onto the juries and start cancelling all the bullshit.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

I get that but the fact is that most people who don't get paid leave from work simply can't afford to go without their regular income if they get stuck with a major trial that last weeks and weeks (or god forbid, months).

It's particularly galling because the longest trials that are most common aren't the ones serving "real" justice but rather ones where two megacorps are suing each other. So you got billions of bucks on the line and everyone is getting paid to their full expectations except the jurors.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

I never try to convince anyone to vote. If you are an adult and are either to uninformed or too lazy to vote without someone constantly nagging you about it, I don't want your opinion influencing elections.

Now I'm all for educating kids in high school how to get registered and I think they should do this for high school seniors in school just like like they do for the draft.

Re:I voted

[houghi]

I live in a country where voting is obligatory (Belgium). You can be required to sit in the voting office for the whole day.

Friend of mine was asked to do that. He showed up drunk. He was excused. This was many, many years ago. So what happens is that they are short handed. The first person who came in was forced to take a seat for the rest of the day. Yeah, do not go voting early. :-D

Generally they will go after lawyers first. Then after teachers. They also look at a specific age, well, year of birth. If that does not bring in enough people, they will start picking people at random.

Obviously many people will try to get out of going to vote, especially because it is on a Sunday. However you need proof and your job will most likely not give it to you that you need to work if you don't.

If you travel, you will show the bill and travel papers to prove you traveled.

You might think this is all wrong. The other side is that people can not be harassed into not going to vote. You still can vote blank.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like your state needs to get its act together. I've never had jury duty take more than a day and I've been on a jury twice already. Only once did it even go the full day. On top of that, you can reschedule it for whenever is convenient for you, up to a full year out from your scheduled appearance. Best of all, it doesn't stop anyone from complaining about how much of a pain it is, so you get the best of both worlds. Unless you've got a lot of crimes relative to the population, there's no reason to make jury duty such a burden.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

No, DAs want stupid type Bs who will go with the majority in the jury. They do not want smart people willing to consider reasonable doubt.

Re:I voted

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why are people so against jury duty? Yes, it's inconvenient but so what

its not inconvenient, its corrupt. how do you think its useful to society, to rubberstamp, a kangaroo court?

until you can get access to the:

a) law, not "jury instructions"
b) caselaw
c) entire history of the case (pre-trial motions)
d) jury nullification

why even bother wasting your time, on a jury?

Re:I voted

[Agripa]

Why are people so against jury duty? Yes, it's inconvenient but so what? We need more intelligent people willing to participate.

People are against it because it is a waste of their time. The courts do not *want* intelligent people; they want stooges to lend credibility to their proceedings and rubber stamp decisions already made.

Re:I voted

[Agripa]

Unfortunately I've been called a few times but dismissed during voir dire every time except once, when the defendant did not show up.

I got bumped during noir dire as well - prosecutor didn't like that I said I couldn't convict someone if I thought the particular law under which a person was charged was morally unjust (which was not applicable to the case we were on, and I went to lengths to make it clear that I wasn't referring to it).

After my last experience as a juror, I'm simply not going to take the affirmation because I will not agree to follow the judge's instructions.

If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vote

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> You gonna vote?

If you express yourself with words like "gonna", please don't vote.

I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote..

[butchersong]

Drives like this always make me think something along the lines of "hey I know you're so disconnected and ill informed that you didn't know today was voting day so please go out and make an ill informed decision"... Still, maybe in aggregate it these things are for the best.

Now I may not vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to see who is snooping and asks about it so I can no longer associate with them. I can't really not vote, but these apps are messed up. I'm all for encouraging everyone to be aware of issues and vote accordingly, but just shaming people into it (which is what this is, despite statements from the app makers to the contrary) won't have any good results, if they already don't care enough to vote and aren't putting any thought into it then they aren't really contributing when they vote, if anything they're watering down the votes from people who want to vote based on issues that matter to them.

Wrong Reasons

[Nidi62]

"I think a lot of people might vote just because they're frankly worried that their friends will find out if they didn't."

If that's your only reason for voting, then you might as well just stay home. People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess. If you aren't willing to make the time and effort to research candidate positions (or even who the candidates are) then you are doing more harm to good when you vote. Democracy and effective government can only exist with an informed electorate. Put pressure on our politicians to campaign on actual, thought out policies and then hold them to those policies if they are elected. Do your research yourself, go to each campaign's website, watch debates and speeches, etc-don't just listen to talking heads or what your preferred candidate says about their opponent. Voting is a right just as owning a gun is a right. Uninformed voting is the electoral equivalent of waving a gun around in the air-when exercising a right, you have a duty to exercise that right responsibly.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."

Considering the US routinely comes in the bottom of voter turnout for industrialized countries, I don't that argument is as useful as you think it is.

Re: Wrong Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

You accidentally your post.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Nidi62]

"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."

Considering the US routinely comes in the bottom of voter turnout for industrialized countries, I don't that argument is as useful as you think it is.

Just shows how much power even a few educated voters can have. All of the "go vote" programs we have, being pushed by athletes, musicians, actors, etc, don't say "go out and learn about the candidates" they say "go vote". The type of people who go vote just because someone tells them to are not the type likely to research candidates. If people would go out, educate themselves about politics and candidates, and then went out and voted a lot of problems in the country would be fixed.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[rogoshen1]

Well clearly they don't want you to go out and vote for a republican or libertarian.

The underlying message is "go vote for team blue!"

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, I'm usually well educated about candidates , and tend to skip voting of races and issues I have not studied, still. I am often voting for the candidate least likely to make me vomit then a candidate I actually want.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."

No, its elitist idiots who got us into this mess with the notion that voting was some kind of intellectual challenge that only qualified people like themselves should participate in. If everyone voted, Donald Trump wouldn't be president because the outcome wouldn't have been determined by who was motivated to vote.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess.

I beg to differ. Half of the things one needs to know to vote responsibly these days have economic rippling effects all over the place, and to understand those effects to any depth is beyond the few hours any ordinary person is capable of putting into such things. Thus, the best solution is for people to seek out individuals of strong character with whom they identify and who have the time to devote to such investigations, and then vote for them, or for those whom they support.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Nidi62]

"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."

No, its elitist idiots who got us into this mess with the notion that voting was some kind of intellectual challenge that only qualified people like themselves should participate in. If everyone voted, Donald Trump wouldn't be president because the outcome wouldn't have been determined by who was motivated to vote.

You mistake my claim of "our current mess" to be primarily directed at the election of Trump, as I assume so does whoever modded me flamebait. While trump is certainly a symptom, it goes much deeper. Current Congressional approval ratings are at less than 20%, yet reelection rates are at over 90%. Why? It's easier to vote for the incumbent. Politicians no longer have to worry about getting things done: if a bill or policy put forth by the majority party fails, it's because the other side killed it or stonewalled it. Your party is now the minority party? Stonewall them because they stonewalled us. Politicians no longer try to govern, they try to get re-elected. Both parties are broken and controlled by specific interests, people know it and they complain about it, yet they refuse to look at independents or 3rd parties.

People vote on a variety of factors: it's how their parents always voted, straight party tickets, how the candidate looks, a single policy such as abortion or gun control, always for/against the incumbent, the last sign they saw pulling into the polling place, who their favorite tv or radio show said to vote for, etc. But yet none of these factors lead to good governance. People hate the government, want to fix it or change it, yet when it is time to do something about it they inevitably fall back on the same old habits then complain that nothing changed. I believe they call that insanity.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Nidi62]

Maybe, I'm usually well educated about candidates , and tend to skip voting of races and issues I have not studied, still.

I've done that myself, and I have also specifically voted 3rd party in cases where the only ads I had ever seen from candidates was to attack their opponents-if you don't want to tell me why I should vote for and instead spend all your time attacking other people, I'm not going to vote for you.

I am often voting for the candidate least likely to make me vomit then a candidate I actually want.

I believe my sig is an appropriate reply to this. When your only choice is between the lesser of two evils, evil still always wins.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[jeff4747]

The idea is a significant percentage of the people who start feeling like they have to vote due to peer pressure will find out about what they are voting on. Right now, paying no attention and not voting is socially acceptable. Make "not voting" no longer socially acceptable, and a good number of people will start paying enough attention to decide as well as any other average voter.

It's unknown at this point if this works, statistically. Anecdotally, people report they have gotten people to pay more attention to politics via peer pressure such as this.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[HornWumpus]

If voting could change the system, it would be illegal!'

Anybody who votes is insufficiently cynical. Don't hire them.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[AmiMoJo]

I'm going to quote your signature to you:

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil

Last election it was Clinton or Trump. Doesn't matter how well you researched either candidate's position, because it boiled down to something other than policy for many people.

Voting from an informed position only really helps if you have a range of candidates, all with a realistic chance of winning. What you actually get is a choice of two and a massive amount of disinformation.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Nidi62]

Last election it was Clinton or Trump. Doesn't matter how well you researched either candidate's position, because it boiled down to something other than policy for many people.

Voting from an informed position only really helps if you have a range of candidates, all with a realistic chance of winning. What you actually get is a choice of two and a massive amount of disinformation.

It was? Huh, I voted for Johnson. You see, that's part of the problem. The 2 party system is broken, everyone realizes it, yet everyone says why vote for them, only the Democrat or Republican can win. It's a cliche, but Rome wasn't built in a day. If the third party candidate is the one that has policies you support, vote for them. Enough people do that and third parties get enough votes to qualify for federal funds in the next election. As they get higher vote percentages, more people will realize they are valid options and vote for them as well.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[HornWumpus]

Especially true in 'safe states'. Vote for someone for a change.

Vermin Supreme was the best choice. As I'm in CA, my vote is wasted in any case.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[The Raven]

No, the cause of our current political issues are largely tied to First-Past-the-Post voting and Gerrymandering. Switching to a Single Transferable Vote would be a far more powerful force for good than any other single change we could do, because it would allow a voice in congress for alternative viewpoints and eliminate the evil that is Gerrymandering.

And it's this echo-chamber of two parties (FPtP) that stay in office forever (Gerrymandering) that's strangling our democracy.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[No Longer an AC]

It's been two years since that election but I recall there were other races and issues on the ballot besides just the Presidential election.

And it wasn't the last election for a lot of us. We have local elections in off years and those have even worse turnout, but those are the elections that most directly affect most people.

And looking at my ballot, I really wish I had run for Coroner or Surveyor because in both of those races there is only one candidate running.

I don't know much about dead bodies or surveying but I figure I can just delegate all that.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."

That is absolutely wrong. It was a country music singer.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are advocating sounds all very nice, but in practice it's a way of limiting the franchise to the highly motivated. Which is a way of ensuring that only extremists take any part or interest in politics.

And that really *is* how we got into the current mess.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[djinn6]

The social convention we need to fix is not talking about politics at work or social events. It's much harder to vote on something that you have no opinions on, like who should be the county sheriff. But if you heard from a friend that the incumbent sheriff turned a blind eye to prisoner abuse, then it's a much easier decision (regardless of whether you're pro prisoner abuse or not).

Re:Wrong Reasons

[serviscope_minor]

The 2 party system is broken, everyone realizes it, yet everyone says why vote for them, only the Democrat or Republican can win.

In the words of Douglas Adams:

"The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

And that's exactly what happened at the last election. People tried not voting for a lizard and then the wrong lizard got in.

Re:Wrong Reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, one has to have a very low IQ or very large bank account to willfully vote for a republican or libertarian.

If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[PeeAitchPee]

. . . they're probably not the kind of person that should be voting anyway.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[cascadingstylesheet]

. . . they're probably not the kind of person that should be voting anyway.

“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory,” he said, “than by the Harvard University faculty.”

-William F. Buckley

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[mark-t]

Why? Serious question... why should a vote from a person who needed some convincing to go out and vote count for less than a vote of a person who enthusiastically does so? Or perhaps putting the shoe on the other foot, why should only the people who think that they know better how important it is to vote have any more say in a democratic society than those who might not think they have any real power to make a difference? Doesn't that sort of defeat the point of democracy?

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting should be a privilege and only a right for those that have earned the privilege. If you serve your country or pay taxes then, and only then should you have the right to vote. With the exception of medicare and social security if you are receiving some kind of government assistance then you should not be allowed to vote. This prevents those that would simply vote for those that promised them the most hand outs.

The founding fathers did have that part right about allowing only people that have some investment in the country to vote. There flaw was limiting it to only white land, male land owners. But the basic premise was sound. Voting should only be a right for those that have the privilege.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they've probably not bothered to inform themselves on the issues for which they were voting. This year there were a couple that I read the headline and thought "oh, sure, I'd vote for that" to then actually read the extra stuff to find out it was actually horrible. You don't really want headline only reader voting.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, unless you take the time to actually be informed and to form a realistic opinion, you are doing everyone a disservice by expressing your opinion at all.

For instance, if you don't have any idea why people want to leave Honduras and the type of abuses illegal aliens are subject too in the united states you probably should not be voting for a candidate based on their stance on immigration. ( A reasonable study will tell you both situations are bad and the issue doesn't fit easily into 1 min sound bytes).

If you are voting based on name recognition you are doing everyone a disservice, if you are voting strictly party lines, that's only slightly better but hopefully you at least agree with the platform.

The reason we have compulsorily education in the United states is because to run a successful Republic you MUST have a well informed electorate. If you have a bunch of people voting who in no way understand the consequences of their actions , they are going to be easily manipulated by big money and you get you we have today in the United States.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Nidi62]

Voting should be a privilege and only a right for those that have earned the privilege.

Wrong. Voting should always be a right for all adult citizens barring a few exceptions (namely felons who have shown no desire or ability to live within society), as the consequences of voting affects everyone. However, like any right, it is a right that should be exercised responsibly. You have a right to free speech, but you shouldn't go around knowingly committing libel or slander or yelling fire in crowded theater or yelling obscenities to children. You have a right to protest, but you shouldn't do it in such a way that puts yourself or others in danger. You have the right to bear arms, but it's irresponsible to wave a gun around near a crowd of people or start randomly firing into the air. You have the right to vote, but you should know who and what you are voting for.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[HornWumpus]

Voting should be with a rifle at 200 yards. If you can't hit the square next to your candidates name, vote doesn't count. Iron sights.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting should always be a right for all adult citizens barring a few exceptions (namely felons who have shown no desire or ability to live within society), as the consequences of voting affects everyone.

Can you explain the discrepancy between the two noun phrases I've highlighted?

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Nidi62]

Voting should always be a right for all adult citizens barring a few exceptions (namely felons who have shown no desire or ability to live within society), as the consequences of voting affects everyone.

Can you explain the discrepancy between the two noun phrases I've highlighted?

Because a line has to be drawn somewhere? Unless you plan to let babies vote. Whoever's picture the crawl to gets their vote? "Legal adult" is a reasonable cutoff because that is also the age in which the person is extended several rights/privileges and also owes a measure of responsibility towards society (draft for example).

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[mark-t]

Because, unless you take the time to actually be informed and to form a realistic opinion, you are doing everyone a disservice by expressing your opinion at all.

Not everyone who needs to be convinced to get out and vote is unaware of what the issues are, and even if they were, you are suggesting that it should be acceptable to suppress voters who don't meet some arbitrary qualification of being "informed" enough to vote... who sets that criteria? This is isomorphically equivalent to suppressing voters who simply have a different opinion than you.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[mark-t]

It is far more common for a person to ignorantly express a wholly biased point of view than it is for a person to hesitate to express themselves because they realize they do not know enough to express any kind of recognizable opinion. For this reason, I do not think that the reason you give is the most common reason people do not vote.

I would suggest that most of the people who do not vote simply don't believe there are enough other people out there that think as they do to make a difference.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting for 'Hay Bale' every time then.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Nidi62]

Voting should be with a rifle at 200 yards. If you can't hit the square next to your candidates name, vote doesn't count. Iron sights.

Not good for farming subsidies then, because a lot of people couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at that range.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect. Voting was never intended to a right for everyone. The founding fathers correctly intended the vote for people that had some stake in the out come of the republic. Where their thinking was flawed was that only white male land owners would fit this bill. They where mistaken.

By giving the vote to everyone the floor has been opened to allow politicians to 'buy' votes by promising to fund exorbitant social programs. Which is what has happened. There is nothing wrong with social programs, these are necessary in today's world. But what is wrong is allowing the recipients of social programs have a say in how these programs managed. That should be the responsibility of those of us that contribute into the republic by taxes or service.

The phrase "one person, one vote" is irresponsible at the least.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[No Longer an AC]

Maybe not, but then you get a lot people who will vote based on misinformation, gut feelings and/or entirely upon party lines. They may feel strongly, but they're not necessarily more informed than those who aren't voting.

I'm not pointing the finger at any particular party either. There are uninformed voters of all political stripes.

I remember one guy I worked with who was intelligent and reasonably informed, but he would not vote despite several of us (who represented a mix of political leanings) trying to convince him one day over lunch. He just said he didn't think his vote wouldn't matter.

It's actually somewhat true if you are only talking about the Presidential election and you live in a solid red or solid blue state but we don't and those other elections matter too.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[Uberbah]

The founding fathers correctly intended

The founding fathers were elitist pieces of shit who should have re-written the Constitution after being forced to spend ten years picking cotton with no pay.

the vote for people that had some stake in the out come of the republic.

Anyone living in a republic by definition has a stake in the outcome of said republic.

By giving the vote to everyone the floor has been opened to allow politicians to 'buy' votes by promising to fund exorbitant social programs. Which is what has happened.

Elitist dumbfuckery. Right off the bat, if that was what had happened, the Republican party wouldn't exist, and Bill Clinton would have passed UBI instead of gutting welfare. And it's not like you Randians have any problem with politicians who whore themselves out promising tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare for corporations who already enjoy billions in profits.

But what is wrong is allowing the recipients of social programs have a say in how these programs managed.

As much as it is wrong to say that you, as a taxpayer, have no business having a say in how those tax dollars are spent.

Dumb.
Fuck.
Er.
Eee.

Re:If you have to convince someone to vote . . .

[houghi]

They still can vote "blank". And not sure that only have "fanboys" vote is a great idea either.

I've been deluged...

[afgun]

My wife registered as preferring one of the parties here in our state. And she has gotten over 100 pieces of mail from that party urging her to vote for their candidates. I did not register a party preference, and have only gotten a couple of pieces of mail urging me to vote. Her voting history has been blazoned across multiple cards in the mail in blatant attempts to shame her into voting. Mine was on one of the pieces of mail that I got. It seems like pretty soon we'll be getting mail telling us that it's time for us to buy more toilet paper because we'll be out next week...

Re:I've been deluged...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have thought she would get treated better after affiliating. Goes to show you...

Re:I've been deluged...

[magarity]

My wife registered as preferring one of the parties here in our state. And she has gotten over 100 pieces of mail from that party

I registered as unaffiliated so as not to be a pawn in the gerrymandering wars but that didn't stop me from getting 5 text messages to my cell from the Democrats urging me to vote for their candidates.

Re:I've been deluged...

[habig]

My wife registered as preferring one of the parties here in our state. And she has gotten over 100 pieces of mail from that party

I registered as unaffiliated so as not to be a pawn in the gerrymandering wars but that didn't stop me from getting 5 text messages to my cell from the Democrats urging me to vote for their candidates.

A related example of how the public information leaked by the voting rolls in TFA can be used for the power of spam^h^h^h^h^hevil: my wife voted in a primary. Although our state has open primaries and we are both officially un-affliated, one party's heuristics have decided that we're now obviously part of their party's political base. So, we been inundated with junk mail and spam calls made with that assumption, on top of the regular blast of robocalls generated by all sides since we live in "a competitive district". Talk about a dis-incentive to participate in the process.

I've told a few of the operatives who managed to reach me on the phone: "Do you really think that calling someone on the Do Not Call registry would actually help give your candidate a positive impression?". Been told that they'd take the number of their lists, but that doesn't seem to have happened. It really cheeses me off that politicians wrote themselves a loophole in that otherwise fine bit of legislation.

Re:I've been deluged...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-American, the fact that people need to register their allegiance at all is completely bizarre.

Re:I've been deluged...

[PeeAitchPee]

Same here . . . my wife and I are both registered unaffiliated voters but our phones got lit up by Democrat groups urging us to attend rallies and go vote, especially MoveOn -- even after we told them to remove us from their lists. Unwanted spamming is definitely is not a good way to sway people to your cause.

Re:I've been deluged...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes in my state over many years I experimented and found using Unaffiliated got me the most political junk mail, followed by Democrat and then Republican. 3rd parties are basically unaffiliated to Democrat and Republican operatives. So I pick Republican which also has the delicious result of pissing people off when they look it up. It makes my day to destroy weak minded people especially left wingers in their 20s who have been so coddled all their lives.

Re:I've been deluged...

[HornWumpus]

Only needed in states with closed primaries and only if you want to vote in those primaries.

Re:I've been deluged...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just tell the one that calls and disturbs be that they just made up my mind to vote for the other group.

Re:I've been deluged...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like pretty soon we'll be getting mail telling us that it's time for us to buy more toilet paper because we'll be out next week...

Just register for [opposing party] and you'll soon have all the low quality toilet paper you want.

Re:I've been deluged...

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife refuses to go vote at all now, because her name, address, and voting history now show up in a google search. That does not help democracy. She is very unhappy at having that private information available online for every stalker to see. (she has had problems with stalkers and does not want to be so easily tracked down by them) I could care less if I get a pile of kindling paper in the mail that I'll never read begging me to vote for or donate to various candidates, but really would prefer if all the PII was kept restricted. (Personally identifiable Information, which has laws to protect in other realms, such as for medical history)

I'd be fine if they provided "here's an anonymized mailing list of addresses of registered voters", with no names or political affiliations (and I get mail for "Registered Voter"...) But many people are simply not comfortable at having information they prefer to keep private posted for all the world to see.

In today's world, just having an address with the wrong political affiliation can lead to problems with the neighbours in some locations. Especially since "second amendment solutions" is now the official doctrine embraced by one of the political parties, rather than civil discourse or compromise.

Re:I've been deluged...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must live in a blue state. Here in the red states, it doesn't matter what party you're affiliated with, or none at all. You get the Republican mailers. Everybody gets them, almost every single day. I am a card carrying member of the Socialist Rifle Association and I get Republican mailers.

Re:Don't laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

OK Alex Jones, loosen the tin foil hat a little.

Intent

[bad-badtz-maru]

> "I don't want this to come off like we're shaming our friends into voting," said Naseem Makiya, the chief executive of OutVote, a start-up in Boston.

It doesn't "come off" like that at all. It comes across like you're a start-up with a useless, non-monetizable product and you're willing to attach yourself to nearly anything in order to gain your desired career trajectory.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[butchersong]

Some day you're gonna get your ass kicked, you elitist prick, and you will deserve it.

I didn't care for the tone of the ops post but I don't think you could have chosen a better response to add weight to his opinion...

I voted...

[The Original CDR]

My roommate is delivering our ballots to the polling station since he drives that way to work.

Re:I voted...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a joke similar to "check's in the mail?"

Re:I voted...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that my roommate used to be a poll worker on election day, he knows the penalities for not properly handling a ballot.

Re:I voted...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure your "roommate"* knows all about properly handling balls, Chris.

* Whatever you say to Mr Roper is your business, Chris...

Re:I voted...

[Anonymous Coward]

He does own a ball python.

Re:I voted...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hoser!

It's the Beginning

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark my words: The only way to know if someone voted is to know which ballot belongs to them. It's not long after that before how people voted is exposed. Just wait until people can get fired from their jobs, booted from social media, or who knows what else based on the candidates or propositions they voted for. Think that sounds silly? Ask Brendan Eich if it's a silly scenario.

When that day comes we will have two choices as a country: hang those who created and allowed such a system, or allow a republican form of government to perish from the earth.

Re:It's the Beginning

[Anonymous Coward]

All the Democrats care about is that the Republicans perish from the Earth...

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know Republicans and Libertarians knew how to use commas, well done sir

Guess I'm out then

[quonset]

The apps try to match the people in a smartphone's contacts

All I have is a dumb flip phone. Aww, too bad you don't get to harvest my information for your use.

Re:Guess I'm out then

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't help much, if others have you in *their* contact list on their smart phones.

Re:Guess I'm out then

[quonset]

Even better, no one has me in their contact list because no one calls me.

Re:Guess I'm out then

[Anonymous Coward]

You're there, but listed as 'Never answer' and assigned silent ringtone.

Re:Guess I'm out then

[AmiMoJo]

How do you even use a flip phone these days? 2G networks are becoming a rare thing. How bad is your coverage?

I'm all for it

[Anonymous Coward]

The more people realize what Big Data means to them (mass surveillance on a scale undreamt of) the more they'll start pushing back against it.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[DarkOx]

They are not for the best. Basically these types of things just turn the electorate into a mob. We are not picking the next American idle here; this is serious. I think every citizen should be able to vote but those who don't want to take it seriously should do everyone a favor and butt out.

Voting is a right; however if you choose to exercise it you have responsibility to take it seriously. Frankly if election day rolls around you still need to be told, that it is election day, where to vote, and what the names of the candidates are - you have not done so. You have no business going to polls at this point IMHO.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[geekmux]

>> You gonna vote? If you express yourself with words like "gonna", please don't vote.

If you think the target audience is concerned about slang, might I remind you that we now have a full compliment of emojis built into our desktop operating systems.

More data points for marketers

[xanthos]

Just saying. These guys must have a business plan behind their app and my guess it is to sell data to marketing companies. "The apps try to match the people in a smartphone's contacts to their voter files, then display some of those details." and no doubt phone the correlated data home to the mothership. One more in the category of creepy social apps to stay away from.

Re:More data points for marketers

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost the entire Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for VoteWithMe appears fine. I suspect the other service is too. It's the parent organization's terms and policies that are trickier to find.

Overall, the only thing you are allowed to do with the data appears to be that you can use it for a legitimate political campaign. Most likely, all of this data is somehow going straight to the DNC and RNC, which isn't that much more powerful than the data they were getting before anyway,

for (int i = 2020 ; ; i += 4 ) { trump(i); }

[Hognoxious]

Whom Americans vote for is private for now.

FTFY

If you don't want to vote, don't worry..

[denis-The-menace]

With all the voter suppression happening and voting machines flipping votes, you will not have to worry about it any more. Next election, You might not be given the option.

Re:If you don't want to vote, don't worry..

[Ungrounded Lightning]

With all the voter suppression happening and voting machines flipping votes, you will not have to worry about it any more.

Showing you're on the left. If you were on the right you'd have said:

With all the illegal immigration happening and the fake voters created by the combination of unexamined mail-in registration and no-appearance-no-hardship absentee (mail in) ballots, you will not have to worry about it any more.

Both ideas are a hazard, whether or not they're true. The purpose of an election is to convince the losing side they'd have also lost the war, so they aren't tempted to start one.

They don't have to believe it's rock-solid-honest for that to work, because a close race means they'd probably lose the war because a lot of people who otherwise could care less WOULD care about trying to overturn the election and fight against them. But if they believe it's massively corrupted and the cheaters are now the tyrants, that stops working.

Look at The Battle of Athens, for instance. Or any of several other cases in US history where a corrupt and election-hacking political machine was thrown out by vigilanties. Or the left's tantrum after the 2016 election.

Re:If you don't want to vote, don't worry..

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing suppressing your people is their own ignorance.

Re:If you don't want to vote, don't worry..

[denis-The-menace]

RE: The purpose of an election is to convince the losing side they'd have also lost the war, so they aren't tempted to start one.

With the state of things, this will be the real issue after this election. I don't know what the centrist and "left leaning" folks will do. Probably organize more.

If the far-right loses, I cannot see them do anything passive. I fear some of them going out to shoot up anything not Christian and white.

Re:If you don't want to vote, don't worry..

[bobbied]

With all the voter suppression happening and voting machines flipping votes, you will not have to worry about it any more. Next election, You might not be given the option.

None of this happens with enough frequency to change any election result.... But hey, there's no way your vote counts if you don't cast it.

Ugh

[cascadingstylesheet]

With friends like that, who need enemies?

FTFY?

[Anonymous Coward]

STFU

Small correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

"A look at VoteWithMe and OutVote, two new political apps that are trying to use peer pressure to get people to vote for democrats."

There, fify.

Re:Small correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite true. Even during TV shows, it's obvious who the bias is for: the left. I vote Republican for one reason: there is not a more conservative party in America. I think the Republicans are horrible, house, senate, and executive. None of them advocate for me. Not a single one. None of them are true conservatives. Not a single one.

Re:Small correction:

[Locke2005]

Depends on the media company, i.e. Fox has an obvious Republican bias.But yes, most media outlets have a liberal bias. I just try to be aware of the bias of the messenger and adjust their message for their known biases. Other than going back to the "equal time" doctrine, I'm not sure what can be done about it.

Re:Small correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

They may have a left-wing bias in the words they use, but they have a strong right-wing in the topics they talk about. The current discourse on migrant caravans is an exemplar of this.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[Anonymous Coward]

>> You gonna vote?

If you express yourself with words like "gonna", please don't vote.

-

Some day you're gonna get your ass kicked, you elitist prick, and you will deserve it.

You can't even win a fight against common sense. The grammar police would take you down without even breaking a sweat, so you can drop the tough guy rhetoric, snowflake.

So...

[Austerity Empowers]

Who voted probably needs to be public information, with all the finger pointing and insinuations out there about fraud. This can be abused by people with deep pockets and agenda, but it is probably not a huge problem right now.

Shaming your friends into voting can only backfire.

Bad system...

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting history and registration should be private.

Bonus captcha: "flagged"

Re:Bad system...

[bobbied]

Voting history and registration should be private.

Bonus captcha: "flagged"

Why? As long as we maintain that how they voted is secret, publish this information.

I think who voted is generally public record for a reason. Knowing who's registered and who cast a ballot has the effect of making vote fraud more obvious and thus more risky for those who would try it. It also allows independent public auditing of total votes cast vrs total votes counted, which tells us something about how accurate the count is, that it's not been fudged.

The deterrent effect it has on vote fraud is worth it to me.

I hope this information isn't available via FTP

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a 40 year old protocol, so you know it must be insecure!

Republicans and Democrats are the same party

[Anonymous Coward]

They are all homies , extremely good friends behind the scenes. It's all an act. A per-determined theater.

There's no use voting anymore - no 3rd party can challenge the sham that is republican/democrat - they are the exact same fucking party.

No need to vote when republican/democrat are going to win - The same exact fucking party

Any other political party that comes close to republican/democrat is quickly subverted by the CIA and turned into a republican/democrat shill party.

A bloody revolution would be the only way to end the republican/democrat system.

Re:Republicans and Democrats are the same party

[Anonymous Coward]

they are the exact same fucking party

Well, except for gun control, immigration, healthcare, minimum wage, the social safety net and a few others.

Otherwise, completely the same...

Re:Republicans and Democrats are the same party

[Locke2005]

The Democrats are still ashamed when they are caught lying, but many Republicans no long even bother to try to hide the fact that they are lying. In other words, they are emulating Trump.

Re:Republicans and Democrats are the same party

[Anonymous Coward]

Both tribes suck. We have the NJ senator under indictment(dem) the TX Atty General who probably committed securities fraud(rep) and the congressman in Cal who's wife was using campaign money for household purposes. All will likely win. Something is very very wrong in the US.

Re:Republicans and Democrats are the same party

[DarkOx]

This so stupid. Don't even pretend the Democrats have some kind of advantage in virtue here.

Trump's lies - some tall tales about turnout out events

Meanwhile we just watched Dianne Feinstein tell the whopper that nobody from her office leaked Christine Fords identity. Which is crazy because how else could it have become public? Now the truth might be she does not know who, but she said it was not her or her people. - Almost certainly a lie. Next we spent three weeks watching a good man get dragged thru the muck while the lefts political leaders did their damnedest to conceal all the statements Ford made to them that conflicted with her story du jour.

Oh how about when right before the 2012 election when Obama's people (Hillary included) try to sell us all on the idea that Bengazi was the response to a youtube video....

Or "If you like your plan you can keep it" - when all the research into the expected effects of the ACA indicated otherwise and Obama knew that!

Please - People who are upset with the "lies" Trump tells better damn well be libertarians, greens, etc, otherwise they just hypocritical partisan hacks.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[Anonymous Coward]

His opinion is that "going to" can't be contracted colloquially into "gonna" because he's a pedantic cunt trying to define others' speech patterns. And he's wrong, he's "gonna" be wrong every time he tries to do that. It ain't a-gonna work.

Oh yeah, and it doesn't portend anything about the political clarity or insights of the user, it's just a colloquialism. Judging people on such things is why Jon-Boy probably IS in fact going to get his ass kicked someday soon.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[CrimsonAvenger]

we now have a full compliment of emojis

Complement.

Using slang doesn't imply stupid and/or ignorant, but not being able to spell does....

harass me and

[Anonymous Coward]

Harass me like that, and our friendship will come to an immediate end.

Re:harass me and

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife was shamed on social media back in 2016 for voting for Donald Trump, who she voted for less for him than against HC. I told her that now you know who your real friends are. I vote straight Republican, rather than for any one candidate, because there is not a more conservative party to be had.

And I remember HC lambasting women, saying they are all beholden to the men they married and they vote the way their husbands tell them. This may be true in some cases, but my wife is her own woman, a doctor no less, and votes and believes the way she wants. We don't even really talk about politics much, since we both basically believe the same things.

I have liberal friends and we get along fine, we still have coffee together. I disagree with them wholeheartedly, but I don't let politics get in the way of friendships. I get asked about my current beliefs by my friends, as if they would change over time, but they are the same as they were when I was a teenager, and I've been on this earth over 50 years.

Re:harass me and

[Locke2005]

Voting for Trump doesn't make you a bad person. Not admitting by now that voting for Trump was a mistake -- THAT makes you a bad person! Obama didn't meet our (unrealistic) expectations either. I'm a liberal, but I believe fiscal conservatives still have some good ideas that we should listen to. The fear and hate mongers? Not so much.

Re:harass me and

[HornWumpus]

Very few people voted for Trump, voting against Hillary _wasn't_ a mistake.

Re:harass me and

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, you voted without even reading your ballot? Not a single voter in America in 2016 voted against Hillary Clinton.

The people who technically voted for Trump were either ideologically voting for Trump, or they were ideologically voting against Clinton plus Johnson plus Stein. There was no option on anyone's ballot to vote against any single candidate; you had to choose to vote for one or vote against three. Voting against one was not an option.

Advocate for approval voting (or Condorcet or IVR) if you want to gain the option to vote against single candidates. You currently are not able to do that anywhere in America (though I think Maine said they want to start, but they haven't done so yet).

Re:harass me and

[HornWumpus]

Bet you don't think the same thing about people that voted against Trump.

I'm in a 'safe state'. So I voted FOR Vermin Supreme. The best candidate running in 2016.

Your just a pinhead with no understanding of realpolitik. More than 50% of D and R voters have never voted FOR anyone.

Re: I know I'm supposed to support get out the vot

[Anonymous Coward]

When people come to America they expect a free blowjob every day. Liberals instantly disappoint them by forcing into slave labor and useless "vote".

You Already Voted

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to "Citizens United v. FEC", your employer did it for you.
You don't remember voting for that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[cayenne8]

They are not for the best. Basically these types of things just turn the electorate into a mob. We are not picking the next American idle here; this is serious. I think every citizen should be able to vote but those who don't want to take it seriously should do everyone a favor and butt out.

Voting is a right; however if you choose to exercise it you have responsibility to take it seriously. Frankly if election day rolls around you still need to be told, that it is election day, where to vote, and what the names of the candidates are - you have not done so. You have no business going to polls at this point IMHO.

Agreed.

We needs some laws on this quick, the privacy your political affilitation and if you vote is now just as important to keep private as it is on HOW you voted.

Things are getting so divisive that we may see things spill over into the workforce....were if your declared political affiliation is known, you may be let go from your job if it doesn't fit into those views carried by your immediate boss, or the company in general.

It is sad, but this is coming.

No one needs to know your leanings, unless YOU tell them, and if you vote or not, is no ones business.

This is supposed to be a free country and privacy on such personal believes and decisions, is a big part of that, to prevent you being coerced one way or another.

better

[bugs2squash]

I actually feel a little better that this kind of public information is out in the open rather than being purchased only by the parties. Maybe it will drive greater participation in democracy and may expose shenanigans where perhaps publication is selectively withheld or delayed by whoever is in control of the elections or even help identify voting irregularities.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[Anonymous Coward]

slang is vary much akin to Jargon.
So last I checked, Linux, Damon, etc.
How about java, perl, windows,
oh wait haven't even gotten too.
l33t p0wn3d ... a better question is why a person would by so closed minded about self expression in the written word.

Statistical sampling

[Anonymous Coward]

The absolute number of votes cast makes zero difference, since their relative proportions determine the outcome.

A random sampling of a mere 10% of the population will give you the proportions to an acceptable level of accuracy.

Something like 50% of people vote, which means we have very high confidence as to what the correct proportions are.

Logically, statistically, we simply don't need more people to vote, in order to know what the "will of the people" is.

So why the huge push to get more people to vote? Because of these two things it accomplishes:

1) it creates the illusion of power among the lower class
2) it imbues a sense of legitimacy to the power that the government uses to abuse us.

that's all.

Re:Statistical sampling

[jeff4747]

A random sampling of a mere 10% of the population will give you the proportions to an acceptable level of accuracy.

Something like 50% of people vote, which means we have very high confidence as to what the correct proportions are.

The problem with your theory is that 50% is not a random sample. It is skewed older and more conservative.

Re:Statistical sampling

[Anonymous Coward]

A random sampling of a mere 10% of the population will give you the proportions to an acceptable level of accuracy.

Something like 50% of people vote, which means we have very high confidence as to what the correct proportions are.

This would be correct... if that 50% were a random sampling.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, I'll vote if I wanna. I'll vote twice, just to piss you off.

Everyone must vote!!!

[XxtraLarGe]

Shouldn't we first find out if people have an informed view of the issues on the ballot before we encourage them to go out?

Re:Everyone must vote!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people are acutely aware of what they believe and need little to no "education" on the matter. I have not changed my beliefs since I was in high school, even though I stay well informed by reading and viewing things from both the left and right. I understand the issues very well, but tend to vote straight Republican rather than for the candidate, because while far from perfect, there is not a more conservative party in the US than the Republican party. Were there, I would cast my vote accordingly. I think the current set of Republicans in all areas local, state, and federal do not advocate for me. None of them are true conservatives, but I cannot vote left since I disagree with almost everything they advocate.

Re:Everyone must vote!!!

[93 Escort Wagon]

Shouldn't we first find out if people have an informed view of the issues on the ballot before we encourage them to go out?

Too many people think "informed view" means "believes the same thing I do".

I want people to vote even if they disagree with me on every issue - but that's just me.

Re:Everyone must vote!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care which side of the issue you fall on, just that you know what the issues are and who your checking the box for. So many times, you have ill informed voters who don't actually understand basic civics playing the roll of useful idiots for one party or the other. Even most of your socialists, green party, or libertarian voters are not versed in the constitution, bill of rights, and where there candidate stands on current issues. Like the "I vote for x because I'm for/against issue A" in an election cycle where it is unlikely that anything about issue A will come of for vote.

Honestly the real problem is that we as a people are more interested in sensationalized opinions presented as news than we are about objective facts we can then assemble into our own opinion.

Re: Everyone must vote!!!

[ljw1004]

How about instead we require people to demonstrate empathy and compassion before they're allowed to vote. That seems more important than being informed.

How about we require them to have served in the military before they can vote, like Starship Troopers. Heinlein said that a vote is an act of force, and only those who understand force in its raw form should wield that power. This argument is that being experienced is more important than being informed.

How about we only allow parents to vote. They're the ones with the most vested interest in long term health of the country and society.

How about we only allow the elderly to vote. They have more experience, which is better than just being informed.

These are all straw men. There's nothing axiomatic which says 'informed' is the best metric. Nor any of my other straw men.

Re:Everyone must vote!!!

[AmiMoJo]

If I said that one of the usual suspects would immediately claim that by "informed" I meant "the right views".

Re:Everyone must vote!!!

[No Longer an AC]

Most people are acutely aware of what they believe and need little to no "education" on the matte

Voting decisions are not always black and white. There were quite a few Amendments and proposals on my ballot and not all of them were easy decisions to make.

They may be easier if you just vote against everything but for example I want the state to be able to afford to build and maintain roads, but should we pay for it by issuing bonds or by raising sales tax slightly? Or do neither.

Another ballot measure sounded very appealing until I thought about the long-term consequences and how it will surely lead to endless legal battles and great expense for the state.

And then I had to consider changes to our income and property tax and before you say that you would vote against any new taxes, property taxes would actually go down for businesses and income tax would not change for most people.

And are the two Amendments that purport to make redistricting less partisan really going to help or could they make things worse?

It took quite a lot of reading and research. The state's "blue book" for this election is over 100 pages long.

There were a few easy ones though.

And then come the judges who I have to decide whether to retain or not. They're appointed here, but I can vote to not retain them after a while. Most people skip actually skip this part of the ballot because most people don't follow day-to-day court proceedings. In 2016 only one judge in the whole state lost his gavel.

Unless you've appeared in their court or there's a widely publicized trial, most people don't have a clue how to vote there.

I have not changed my beliefs since I was in high school

I certainly have. I've experienced and learned a lot since then. I'm more mature and I'm better informed. I understand more about unintended consequences.

And we aren't facing the same issues that we were when I was in high school. We were still worried about the Soviets and the internet as most people know it today didn't even exist back then. Companies like Google, Amazon and Facebook had not even been dreamed up yet.

Hell, Mark Zuckerberg hadn't even been born yet and Ajit Pai was just a kid.

tend to vote straight Republican rather than for the candidate,

IMO, too many people vote straight party tickets. Sometimes the candidate from the other party will be the better one.

Re:Everyone must vote!!!

[No Longer an AC]

Too many people think "informed view" means "believes the same thing I do".

Mod that up!

I used to encourage more people to vote, but back in '04 when I included the following in an e-mail: "I won't tell you how to vote but vote" (or something like that).

The reply I got was basically "Well, I wish you would tell me how to vote because I don't know".

How should I know? I don't even live in that state. I'm not sure I could even name both their Senators.

Re:Everyone must vote!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I said that one of the usual suspects would immediately claim that by "informed" I meant "the right views".

And in that particular case, they'd be right. You're a known quantity on /.

Re: Everyone must vote!!!

[djinn6]

How about we only allow the elderly to vote. They have more experience, which is better than just being informed.

You think this is a straw man, but if we go all the way to the other end, we'd have infants voting.

There's a certain degree of uninformedness that would be counter productive. If someone's knew nothing about the candidates, or worse, decides based on a single attack ad they saw on TV, then it's better that they don't vote. If anything is worse than voter suppression, it's turning an election into a race of who has the most money.

Re:Everyone must vote!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

NO NO NO!!!

You should FIRST find out about what you're actually doing when you vote...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUU67FDsWuE

Then keep watching the linked videos until you understand what it is you have to do.

Binary choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what a binary sort is? I hope so. It's CS 101.

The there are binary choices.

So, we're pretty much stuck with two parties that have any power.

If we all kept all voting for our interests - at least the closest thing to what represents us - then eventually, we'd get to where we are being represented - better.

I REALLY respect the Republican Tea Party. They made changes in a matter of years. Because they mobilized and went for their goals.

The things that pisses me off about my fellow Liberals is that they think that they can make changes in ONE election. That their views are obviously right, and if a candidate is "low energy" (WTF does THAT mean?!) then they aren't worth it.

BUT- When it doesn't go their way - they are out there in the streets!! Protesting!!

The Republicans have a blueprint for success. They have been in power for over 18 years - (Please, the Obama years? The Reps Neutered him like a dog. )

Why?

Because they FUCKING VOTE!! They vote for their guy no matter what! I could make a campaign ad for the general election where I'm sitting there naked, with a half naked TEEN, and a half empty bottle of Jack Daniels and say, "Fuck you. I've got "Republican" by my name. You're gonna vote for me. Yeah yeah yeah, I'm anti-abortion, pro-gun....suck my dick."

Proof of concept? Alabama 2016. Roy Moore.

Re:Binary choices

[bobbied]

Proof of concept? Alabama 2016. Roy Moore.

Bad example. Ole' Roy was the candidate because another candidate split the republican vote in the primary, not because he was the darling of the party. Trump campaigned for another republican in the primary you know. This is uniquely a republican problem, where better candidates split the vote in the primary, leaving the less desirable candidate in the general (Hello? Remember how Trump got nominated?). THAT'S the issue here, or it was the issue with Roy. I don't see democrats doing this as much, though it seems to be happening more often of late.

That the rank and file vote for their party's candidate, is NOT unique to either party. In fact, it's pretty much a given for both sides. This is why turnout tends to be the focus of campaigns, you have to get your rank and file out to vote, or you are done, in most places where the race is even marginally competitive.

Re:Binary choices

[HornWumpus]

Moore came from the 'church lady wing', morons who vote as they are told. Big problem in states like Alabama.

The Ds have the same problem with their commie wing. Big problem in granola states. How the fuck did Willie Browns squeeze end up in the Senate?

Re:Binary choices

[bobbied]

Moore came from the 'church lady wing', morons who vote as they are told. Big problem in states like Alabama.

LOL.. Nope... Moore came by default as the second choice candidate. As I recall there where three major candidates in the primary, two who where right of Roy and drew more total votes between them than Cowboy Roy who rode his horse to the polls. All the little old church ladies voted for the clean cut right wingers, not Judge Roy Moore with his horse.

The sad part about all this was that Roy got Borked/Kavanaughed by the democrats who threw literally everything they had including the kitchen sink and nearly lost even with the creepy teenage girls dating stories that got tossed out without much actual evidence over his getting tossed out of the local mall some 30 years ago... I always wondered why, after multiple state wide elections which Moore barely won in the past, this all just happened to come up a month before election day? Yea, it was a setup, given how quickly it got dropped...

Re:Binary choices

[LordAba]

I REALLY respect the Republican Tea Party. They made changes in a matter of years. Because they mobilized and went for their goals.

I don't know if it is just my perspective, but it seemed that the religious right lost a lot of steam since the Tea Party popped up. I think it is the focus on economics and liberalism. Granted, the Tea Party still has a religious tinge to them which further split in Libertarians. It was probably the best thing to happen to the party in recent memory. Granted, I'm still not crazy on hyper conservative liberal polices... I still think there needs to be government controlled regulation and safety nets if for nothing else than to prevent people becoming so desperate as to commit.crime.

It is probably also why I've become more critical of the left and the Democratic party. The left has embraced a Marxist viewpoint, only replace class with race/sex/etc. When growing up the left was more about liberty and making sure we had the same starting opportunity. Nothing points to this more than Hilary talking about "deplorable" people, and the Kavanaugh hearings which focused on "listen and believe" more than any of his shitty support of NSA surveillance! Come the on!

Re:Binary choices

[omnichad]

Please back candidates that support ranked choice voting. It's the only easy to get out of the closed loop we are in.

Re:Binary choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof of concept? Alabama 2016. Roy Moore.

Bad example. Ole' Roy was the candidate because another candidate split the republican vote in the primary, not because he was the darling of the party. Trump campaigned for another republican in the primary you know. This is uniquely a republican problem, where better candidates split the vote in the primary, leaving the less desirable candidate in the general (Hello? Remember how Trump got nominated?). THAT'S the issue here, or it was the issue with Roy. I don't see democrats doing this as much, though it seems to be happening more often of late.

No, the Democrats just use Super-delegates which are similar to the Electoral College. The best part is when they use super delegates to sway the primary winner, and then bitch when the EC does the same thing against their chosen candidate.

Re: Binary choices

[Reaper9889]

Really? Binary sort? To the best of my knowledge there is no such sorting algorithm and a brief search found nothing as well. Binary insertion sort exists, but even that is not good CS 101 material, because it has bad complexity (O(n^2)) and is not even the simplest algorithm with that complexity (that would be bubble sort).

Re:Binary choices

[Agripa]

Please back candidates that support ranked choice voting. It's the only easy to get out of the closed loop we are in.

I would say approval voting but it is irrelevant because neither party supports an alternative to plurality.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[rojash]

what a dumass, obv. not from here

The Franchise

[Anonymous Coward]

An old Asimov book used Multivac to question a single randomly chosen individual a number of seemingly random questions. From his responses it determined the proper outcome of the election for all districts. Obviously Asimov believed as you did but took it to an extreme level for a fictional story.

Amusing part is I read it Oct 2008, the story talked about the presidential election in Nov 2008. Think it was written in the 60s.

Just thought you might like to know is been a common theme for a while.

Re:The Franchise

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Dang, beat me to it!
Was actually written in the 50s. Multivac was Asimov's prediction of what Univac would become.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[halivar]

He did in fact misspell "complement." Nevertheless, you understood and received his intended meaning; therefore, communication was successful. Anything beyond that is useless pedantry.

Re:obnoxious subject

[cayenne8]

I hope you die today, for the good of the country.

Lighten up Francis.....

Geez, learn to take a joke.

Huge privacy violation

[Locke2005]

The sent me a card telling whether or not I voted for the past years, along with the voting record of other people on my street with their names and addresses redacted for privacy. There are only TWO houses on my street!

Vote shaming?

[samdu]

"I don't want this to come off like we're shaming our friends into voting," said Naseem Makiya...

Proceeds to create app that shames friends into voting.

Dangerous

[Roger W Moore]

Depends on where you live. Here, there's no point in voting because the Democrat will win, every single time, by more than +30%.

It's thinking like that which gave us Brexit.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on where you live. Here, there's no point in voting because the Democrat will win, every single time, by more than +30%.

It's thinking like that which gave us Brexit.

Thinking like that allowed the will of the UK people to be carried out? Cool!

Re:Dangerous

[No Longer an AC]

I suspect it also gave Trump an advantage in 2016.

There were a lot of complaints and criticism of the media and pollsters predicting a Clinton win, but did it really benefit her? I'm sure a lot of people who wanted her to win were lazy and stayed home because they were convinced she was a shoo-in.

I doubt as many Trump supporters stayed home blissfully confident that he would be elected even without their vote.

I don't see how this app is going to work since I just got back from turning in my mail-in ballot in person. I suspect by the time it's opened and my name is checked off the polls will already be closed. In fact I'm almost certain that's the case because it's now in a sealed box with a bunch of other ballots.

At this point it would just be annoying for someone to make me look at my phone to remind me to vote.

Re:Dangerous

[Roger W Moore]

What evidence do you have that Brexit is the will of the UK people? One vote where over 2 million Brits living in the EU were not allowed to vote and others stupidly stayed home because they thought remain would win? Indeed, if you are so confident that Brexit remains the will of the people then I hope you support a second referendum on whether to accept the deal (if any) that May gets or to reverse direction and remain.

Re:Dangerous

[Agripa]

Depends on where you live. Here, there's no point in voting because the Democrat will win, every single time, by more than +30%.

It's thinking like that which gave us Brexit.

Then fix it. But do it without voting because both parties want it the way it is.

Re:obnoxious subject

[Anonymous Coward]

NOT A JOKE YOU TREASONOUS FAGGOT

I hope you die today for the good of the country.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[Reaper9889]

What you say makes sense. However, there is another property of voting that has some effect: if you vote, you get some stake in the goverment.

This is precisely why I don't vote.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't feel that my personal information should be made public just to be able to vote. The information should be confidential and only shared between the campaigns of my choosing and election commissions/officials. If any of this information is compromised or leaked, I think that stiff fines and prison sentences should be in order for anybody negligent or in their duties or willful in conduct. I also feel that property tax records, marriage licenses, etc. is really nobody's business other than the agency keeping the records. The only records that should be legal to make public are criminal and some civil records.

I voted for Libertarians and Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray!

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[jeff4747]

The idea is to start building a habit, and applying pressure so that people feel they need to vote. Which results in them paying some attention to what they are voting on in subsequent elections.

It's plausible, but obviously unproven at this point.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting is a right; however if you choose to exercise it you have responsibility to take it seriously. Frankly if election day rolls around you still need to be told, that it is election day, where to vote, and what the names of the candidates are - you have not done so. You have no business going to polls at this point IMHO.

In my city, a large number of polling locations were moved last minute (supposedly due to "mold" at the original locations). So letting people know how to find where to vote is a legitimate help to people, even ones that have been following the whole time.

Media will sometimes highlight some races and not others, some candidates and not others. Information on who's on the ballot is a bit hard to come by, it's not like the mail a sample ballot to every single resident in the whole country (maybe they should?).

Some states have voter protection laws that allow you time off of work to vote (it should be a fully holiday probably but this is what we have for now). Not everyone knows that unless you're following legal journals where they announce law changes.

Let's not blame voters for a system that fails them and makes it difficult to be involved. Instead, blame politicians and officials that continue an opaque process instead of a transparent democracy.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Get-out-the-vote drives are healthy for democracy. Intimidation and privacy violation are not. States should not publish voter's phone numbers, party affiliations, or time of voting. (There may be narrow use cases where researchers/journalist/bureaucrats need to see this information, but that's another discussion.)

Party affiliation is a good example. If you live in a strong blue or strong red district and you vote the other way, that's none of your friends business. One negative outcome here (aside from potential intimidation) is that crossing party lines in preliminaries is good for fighting gerrymandering. If you're blue in a red place, go vote for the bluest red guy. If you're red in a blue place, go vote for the reddest blue guy.

Everyone Must Vote in Turkey.

[Zorro]

Look at how well THAT has turned out.

Re:Everyone Must Vote in Turkey.

[houghi]

Everybody must vote in Belgium and look out how our beer and chocolate turned out.

The reason behind obliged voting is that way you can not prevent people to go and vote.

Re:Everyone Must Vote in Turkey.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your beer is too watery and sweet. Your chocolate is okay, but it would be better if you used a darker cacao and perhaps switched to cane sugar. Just my opinion, though.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say makes sense. However, there is another property of voting that has some effect: if you vote, you get some stake in the goverment.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Don't Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting is just a way of legitimizing hierarchical authority

Public printouts

[myid]

I've been a poll worker three times in California. We had several printouts of the names and addresses of registered voters in our precinct. We had to put one of those printouts outside the polling place. Once an hour until 5 pm, on that public printout, we had to cross off the names of the people who had voted.

I asked someone why the list of voter names and addresses, and whether they'd voted, should be made public like that. She replied that it was to help political party workers get out the vote.

For me, that's not a good enough reason. My name and address, and whether I've voted, should be kept private.

Apps like these, and public voter printouts, hurt people's privacy.

Re:Public printouts

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a poll worker three times

So you're an old fart. Got it.

At least you got to feel significant for a whole little while! In the time in between elections you can always go to various stores and hassle the staff. Really it's great when I have a legitimate reason but I have to wait .. and wait ... and wait for lonely bored old people to run out of really obvious stupid questions. Everyone loves that!

Not so fast

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-voter, I'm a net benefit to you and everyone else who does vote. Here's why:

Although I refuse to vote on your side, I also refuse to vote on your enemy's side. That is key. When your enemy votes, he neutralizes your vote. I don't.

Yet I am still required to pay taxes and be held accountable to government, just as you and your enemy are. Assuming I generate more economic value than I consume, I'm essentially making the pot bigger without claiming a seat at the poker table. And so are the hundreds of millions of other people who don't vote.

To be clear, if the hundreds of millions of people who don't vote all suddenly disappeared, so would trillions of dollars from the GDP.

Re:Not so fast

[No Longer an AC]

Thank you for your service.

You're a force-multiplier for all of the votes from people who do cast ballots.

It's simple math. If there are 100 voters and all of them vote, my vote is only 1 in 100. If only 50 vote, it is twice as powerful. Now I've just got to convince the 49 other voters not to vote too.

Maybe we should discourage people from voting, but let's not make it hard to vote.

Harrassment

[Scutter]

I received a form letter showing me the voting status of everyone on my street (names redacted, addresses intact, but since I know my neighbors and where they live, it's hardly good enough to redact the names) and a warning that if I didn't vote today they would start calling me on the phone to explain myself. They didn't put it like that, of course, because that borders on harassment, but that's exactly what the entire letter implied. "If you choose not to vote, we'll be calling you in the next few days to discuss your choice." Yeah, I don't think so. The only response you're going to get from me is a big "Eff You".

It suggested that I may want to "talk to [my] non-voting neighbors to help them understand why voting is important]." and that they would be doing the same by calling them after election day (if they didn't vote), too.

Yes, you should vote. But whether you vote or not is still a choice and no one has the right to harass you for it.

Re:Harrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

That's bad. Who sent you the form letter? You should call them, and tell them to leave you alone.

Re:Harrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that a restriction on freedom of speech?

Re:Harrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be the definition of voter intimidation.

Re:Harrassment

[Aristos Mazer]

I think this is more non-voter intimidation. I'm not sure if that's illegal or not.

Re:Harrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you should vote. But whether you vote or not is still a choice and no one has the right to harass you for it.

You were making sense right up until those last few words. WTF, of course people have the right to harass you for it. We have the right to harass one another if you wear a shirt with a color that we don't like. We all have the right to harass anyone we think has hair too long or too short. Everyone has the right to harass people whose names start with vowels. WTF is so special about not-voting that we would make a glaring exception to how everything else works?

If you don't vote and I find out, of course I have the right to harass you. Just like you have the right to harass me for voting. The only kinds of harassment that we've taken away the right to perform, are some specially enumerated ones, and they're exceptions because the people voted for representative to take that right away. But non-voters aren't a protected class. People are still allowed to use their brain when they think about you. Of course, that could change after this election, but I don't think non-voters are demanding that of their representatives, since their whole platform is that they don't care about anything at all, including protecting or infringing anyone's rights to harass.

ahh yes, I'm sure this will help.

[foradoxium]

I'm sure Democrats will totally reach out to registered republicans in their networks and urge them to vote...likewise the other way around.

Re:ahh yes, I'm sure this will help.

[bongey]

Democrats actually do this to my wife who is a registered republican.

Re:ahh yes, I'm sure this will help.

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans actually do this to every registered Democrat in the red states.

...because shaming works so well!

[Bitbeard]

Shaming is working great so far. We keep reminding fat people they are unattractive and lazy. See how the world is now skinny?

The vote; are you earning it?

[LordAba]

This is just bad news all around. There is a reason that ballot selfies are illegal. I mean... look at the vitriol Kanye got from other members of the black community on CNN for merely talking to Trump. Voting is... too easy to do on party lines. This squeezes out third parties. Like... maybe make it so you have to write the name of the person you are voting for legibly with no spelling mistakes. With allowances for people with disabilities. Maybe Heinlein had a good system after all. Earn the right to vote, earn the right to serve, and take personal responsibility.

Re:The vote; are you earning it?

[AsylumWraith]

The "Starship Troopers" system basically says that, to vote, you must have some skin in the game.

Well, guess what? I already do. I pay taxes to my city, (sales tax,) county, (property tax,) and the national government, (income tax.)

If you're going to disenfranchise me, then you better damned well not expect me to pay any taxes. That would be "taxation without representation." Our ancestors fought a war over it, supposedly.

I earn my right to vote every year between February and April.

Re:The vote; are you earning it?

[LordAba]

Fair point, and yet... not really IMO.

You pay taxes for the niceties that you have; roads, police, welfare, educated populace. I understand you want some feedback on how that is spent and want to see where that money goes.

At the same time... congratulations on doing next to nothing to maintain the minimum of civility! You really "earned" that one, right? The reason why it was a bigger issue during those times were that the taxes were being collected by a essentially a foreign government to oppress the local population. Don't get me wrong, there are some libertarians that basically believe that of current taxation, and they are right in a way, but you have to choose what level of community that you want. Just like you are happy for "representation" to mean voting for people who are basically hand picked by a two party system.

The Starship Troopers model has that, but you have to go through a program to be able to have the vote. Anyone can not go through the program and live a perfectly fine life, they just can't vote or hold office. Anyone, ANYONE, can go through this program to earn the right to vote and hold office... but they make the program hell so that you are forced to earn it (in the books and movies it is high militaristic, but that's because it is following a soldier; there are other paths to citizenship). It is highly liberal and in fact much more individual than our system with a de-emphasis on party lines.

Maybe a compromise is to make anyone who wants to hold government positions go through some training. If every politician is locked up for 6 months in prison they might appreciate the same rights that they seemingly want to erode for the rest of us.

Re: obnoxious subject

[Anonymous Coward]

How good of you to tell a POC* to fuck off and die.

It may or may not be true. Figured that'd be like divide by zero for our apoplectic NPC.

Re: obnoxious subject

[TimMD909]

Wow... An NPC from older days before "faggot" was removed from the acceptable dictionary. Wish they'd also push an update to say it's not ok for bots to tell people to fuck off and die. I'm sure they're busy though. They'll get around to it when they can.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

but those who don't want to take it seriously should do everyone a favor and butt out

Interesting. Who gets to define what "taking it seriously" entails?

Telling a person not to vote, for any reason, seems antithetical to what democracy stands for. In fact, it's kind of gross.

This is an example of "Nudging"

[meburke]

In the last 3 months I have seen this exact technique described and reported in 6 different books on Psychology and persuasion.

The technique, sometimes called "voting report card" depends on the assumption that people can be "nudged" into "responsible" behavior by adjusting the ways in which they are given choices, either through policy or environment. Although the book, "Nudge" by Richard Thaler https://www.amazon.com/Nudge-I... advocates a more free choice approach to shaping peoples' behavior, it can easily be abused, especially if the targets are somewhat vulnerable. Thaler's work has influenced many authors who write books on self-discipline and personal achievement. An example of where it is being used to great effect is in the UK, in what is referred to as the "Nudge Unit" https://www.amazon.com/Think-S... . This unit has also done some successful consulting in the USA. The book, "Think Small" is a pretty good introduction and a very interesting read.

But what then? Let's suppose you are able to get an additional 10% of the voting population to vote: Is that good or bad? Are these people qualified to vote? (Eligible, yes. Qualified, who knows?) In over 40 years of asking I've only found 2 people (who were not lawyers) who knew the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America. The majority of the US population is woefully ignorant about US History and Economics https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007... . Most of them (WARNING! GENERALIZATION ALERT!) are unable to recognize and adjust their thinking to the 22 main rhetorical fallacies. Are we a more free country when we let idiots vote?

Re:This is an example of "Nudging"

[Anonymous Coward]

Nudge nudge...your wifes a goer? Nudge nudge.

Re:This is an example of "Nudging"

[No Longer an AC]

It seems somewhat akin to my electric bill which tells me how "efficient" I am compared to 100 comparable sized homes in my neighborhood. The jokes on them though because my occupancy rate is lower than average too. I only do badly in the summer (running the AC), but during the winter I consider it a game.

In over 40 years of asking I've only found 2 people (who were not lawyers) who knew the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States of America.

What do you mean by "knew"?

Do you mean have they read them? Remembered all the details from when they read them? had them memorized? or whether they really understood all the details?

You should ask them if they can name any of the Bill of Rights beyond the First and Second Amendments.

Better yet, ask them a set of leading questions like so:

Do you support our military?
Do you think people should do everything they can to help them defend our freedom?
Do you think it should be permissible for homeowners to be forced to house soldiers in their private residences if the Commander in Chief decides there is a need to?

Of course I voted.

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted a straight Republican ticket. Which is funny since it upsets my liberal friends so much. Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions (which are apparently not very popular on college campuses).

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[AmiMoJo]

There is a lot of effort to stop people voting, so encouraging them to overcome the barriers is a good thing.

Even if they are less than ideally informed now, participating is a good step towards more engagement and learning.

Recent elections and referendums have made people realize that their votes do count.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[AmiMoJo]

That's a very elitist attitude. Just because someone votes for reasons that seem trivial to you doesn't mean that their vote is less worthy than yours.

The other reason it's important to get the vote out is that if you don't only angry people vote, and it's better for everyone if there are a range of views represented rather than just anger.

What choice is there, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

What choice is there, really?
Game Theory dictates: with only Two Choices, these Two will converge and render any true breadth, or true alternatives moot, or sold to highest bidder.

Captcha; electric

Really? Who gives a...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump has really made America Grate Again. Actually, heâ(TM)s ensured most of us no longer give a shit. Heâ(TM)s given Putin a boost, and made it clear that everybody else should take responsibility for dealing with it. More importantly, heâ(TM)s accelerated Chinaâ(TM)s rise to the top. The world looks to the East now when they want to see somebody who can lead.

Quid Pro Quo

[Anonymous Coward]

I will start voting when the never ending attack ads are abolished.

I have no issue with candidate X telling me why they are a great candidate.

I have major issues with some bullshit PAC with infinite funds constantly flooding the airwaves about why candidate Y is such a horrible, terrible person and choice.

Re: If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't v

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you wish to move away from archaic or lagacy usage, and show that you are up to date with modern parlance, we recommend using "got" not "gotten".

Thank you.

Or is it a fedora? [Re:I will vote]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Anyone with a red hat, you need to vote next month as it's national red hat month and you'll get twice the voting power if you save it up.

Hey! What do you have against Linux users?

Re: Or is it a fedora? [Re:I will vote]

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM**

900 phone numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why everyone needs a 900 phone number, so that when spamers call you get to charge them for it.
Yet folks like Naseem need to have their private phone numbers and email publically published so we can each call them.

I still don't understant this "state party" thing.

[RockDoctor]

it can include details like their name, address, phone number and party affiliation

What the flying fuck business does the state have in knowing which one of the 8 significant political parties you're affiliated to? If any. Or several. I mean, it's perfectly possible for you to have valid grounds for affiliation to 4 political parties here, without one word of hypocrisy and only considering where you grew up and where you live now. If you've had a more mobile history, it could be 5, easily.

But hey, America's problem, so there's no reason to expect a solution. It's obviously convenient for the "powers that be", so the voters can go hang.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[XXongo]

...Party affiliation is a good example. If you live in a strong blue or strong red district and you vote the other way, that's none of your friends business.

Keep in mind that "party affiliation" does not say who you vote for in the election. It only says which of the primaries you vote in.

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the period key on your keyboard broken? Observe:

I didn't know Republicans and Libertarians knew how to use commas. Well done, sir.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[squiggleslash]

The solution to this is not telling people not to vote, it's trying to make sure as many voters are informed as possible. Otherwise you get rule by the most angry minority.

I'm in favor of mandatory (automatic) registration, of ensuring the pool of voters is as wide as practical (none of this Jim Crow era sanctions against people convicted of a crime) and I'm in two minds about whether we should have Australian style mandatory voting (you can always spoil your ballot, but you have to turn up to the election at least)

But... I'd also like to see the importance and responsibilities of the people voted for increased. It's ludicrous that my ballot paper had 20-30 things to vote on, including Florida state constitutional amendments proposing things that do not belong in a constitution, questions about keeping judges, and that's not to mention the local races. Thankfully I didn't need to vote for a dog catcher, but still.

This isn't "local democracy", it's ensuring only those most passionate about subjects control them, which isn't always for the best. My ballot should have had at most five positions this year: US Congress (Senator, Congressman), Florida State Congress (ditto), and local county commissioner. And that's it. There were, perhaps, two constitutional amendments that were legitimate, and those were the only two I've seen since I moved here (about who gets the vote, and removing a constitutional bar to lowering sentences) and perhaps if we weren't trying to shove high speed rail (I support HSR, don't get me wrong, just the constitution isn't the way to get it) and anti-off-shore drilling mandates, and mandates about casinos, and other similar BS, into the constitution perhaps these would have been resolved decades ago.

Make it simple. Make it understandable. Make it important. Give people something they can understand and they will make worthwhile choices. And let them make those choices.

Re: I know I'm supposed to support get out the vot

[Anonymous Coward]

wat

Did You Vote? People You Don't Want To Know, Know

[ZNetracer]

From the OP: "Whom Americans vote for is private." - Largely NOT true AND IT SHOULD BE. "But other information in their state voter files is public information; depending on the state, it can include details like their name, address, phone number and party affiliation and when they voted." - None of this information should be public knowledge. And it is actually much worse. In my state in the US for example, the following information is publicly available, just by entering a first and last name into the State voter search page: Your Address, County, Registration Status, Voter Reg Num, Party, Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Registration Date, NCDMV Customer (Do you have a driver's licence?). They also helpfully provide your Voting History, to include: Elections you voted in, Voting Method, Voted County, Voted Party (which appears to be gathered from the ballot type you chose to vote on, depending on the type of election). So basically, everyone on the planet can know, who you are politically and who you voted for (at least party-wise). In today's political climate, is it really appropriate that this type of info is made public?

Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't built in to my desktop operating system. I had to install a font package for them to display (I can't actually remember why I wanted them now). And given that new ones seem to be frequently added, I suspect what I installed isn't a full complement.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

The other reason it's important to get the vote out is that if you don't only angry people vote,

I didn't realise I was angry every time I went to vote, but if you say it it must be true.

Mandatory voting is excellent

[Harlequin80]

Over 18, must be on the roll. Must vote.

Means lots of poling places everywhere, no queues, the electoral commission comes to your house if you have a reason you cant travel there.

Also set an independent body to set electoral boundaries so gerrymandering is a thing of the past.

Don't want to vote for anyone? Draw a giant cock on the ballot sheet.

Seems to work extremely well in Australia. Sure we have our political problems, but when everyone has to vote it naturally pulls the political representation towards the center as dog whistling to get people out to vote isn't required. You can see a correction coming in australia now. The current ruling party tried to lurch to the right on social and economic policy. There was a byelection that had the highest swing against the government in history and come the general election in may they are going to be wiped out. They will sit in electoral purgatory until they move back to the center.

This=tampering moreso than any Foreign influence

[mysidia]

With the turnout to a typical election less than half.... who wins Is all about who is motivated to vote.
See, all parties have "apathetic voters" who didn't care enough to show up to the polls ---- Selectively prodding ones with certain demographics or
certain party affiliation basically amounts to tampering with the outcomes of elections.

Frankly... This should be illegal. At a personal level, sure, you should encourage your friends to vote, and that should be perfectly fine as long as you are not discriminating based on their party affiliation, etc --- But gaining access to party rosters and using selective pressure or systematic discriminatory aid to different groups (e.g. Republicans, Democrats, people who live in a certain neighborhood are of a certain age range, class, race, gender, etc) - is something that should be banned for fairness in elections.

Re: obnoxious subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone relying on an anonymous random person on slashdot to get voter information who ends up not voting because of said AC information is too stupid vote and it is a good thing they stayed home.

I haven't voted for YEARS

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't voted for YEARS because frankly I don't give a shit who wins. All the choices suck.

Re:Don't laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

there have been stories of CEOs threatening to fire people if they voted a certain way in 2012 and 2016 (I don't have links, search it yourself)

So, what are you DOING about your options?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was happy to see that there were five races on my ballot which had more than two candidates. Big-L Libertarians are starting to show up, no longer just a presidential election thing.

Perhaps that's not what you want, but if we got that far (and we suck) then you can probably do it too.

Form a party, or steal an existing one and repurpose it (it's been done before, though I won't inflame by saying who did what when).

The law of unintended consequences

[cyanman]

This phenomena may discourage more voter registration than it encourages the vote.

I got a postcard in the mail that listed names, addresses and voting percentages (with a letter grade) of a half dozen of my neighbors. Some listed as voting 100% of the time, while I having only voted 68% of the time was given a D grade for not voting enough. I've also received multiple texts in the past week extolling my poor voting record, asking me to be a responsible citizen and vote, even though I had already early voted. I guess the app does not update current information after all. Every on knows unnecessary harassment always helps persuade.

Strangely lacking was the over 50% of my neighbors who likely never bothered to register, so if I get a D for not voting in useless primaries, while the non-registered adults get a free pass, exactly why does this encourage marginal or non-registered voters to participate?

60-80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck

[rsilvergun]

depending on how you run the numbers and if you consider $1000 in the bank paycheck to paycheck (I certainly do).

They can't afford to take 1-3 weeks off from work making $12/day. Some would lose their cars or homes. Very few companies pay you while you're on Jury duty.

No joke

[rsilvergun]

the one Jury I've served on a women said this:

We cannot allow our feelings to sway us when making this decision and we need to get this guy off the streets

Didn't even pause between those non-sequitur. Sure as hell didn't see the irony. Since then I've been opposed to Juries. The possibility of jury nullification saving me is dwarfed by the chances that somebody would send me up the river because they don't like the cut of my jib; especially since I'm a nerd.

But you don't really

[rsilvergun]

the prosecution gets to pick jurors too. Also, you're probably not going to get peers unless you're in your 50s since most people who work have to beg and plead to get out of it thanks to that joke of a per diem.

Plus, think of it this way, do you really want to be judged by a panel of folks too dumb to get out of jury duty?

That is _not_ what got this country into it's mess

[rsilvergun]

Greed did. Greedy aristocrats plunging us into pointless wars to retail their every growing power and wealth.

Folks aren't nearly as stupid as you think they are. But they _are_ beaten down. If it takes a singer to get them out of bed and to the polls, so be it. Folks know what's what. But America isn't a functioning Democracy. Gerrymandering and Voter suppression have wrecked it more than the occasional moron every will. These things were done by the very wealthy as part of a long, 40+ year campaign to shut down democracy, worker's rights and better pay for workers.

Like I said, Folks in general know this, but it's exhausting to face it head on. Whatever floats your boat to face reality is OK by me.

People know all this

[rsilvergun]

but voting is stressful, exhausting and in many states just plain hard (thanks to Voter Suppression).

Things like this are designed to counter act that stress and exhaustion. They're good things. These people aren't any less informed than the useful idiots that the American Aristocracy has deemed allowed to vote. If anything they're _more_ informed. That's the problem. When you know how well and truly fucked the worlds is it's easy to get discouraged.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[ElizabethGreene]

I agree with privacy for political affiliation, but I would prefer the did/did-not vote data remain public. It is of statistical interest to me.

Re: You're a treasonous lying faggot Cayenne

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh. You must beling to that third party. The Dumbocrats

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[phantomfive]

"Get out the vote" drives are always partisan........one party or the other has made the calculation that "apathetic voters are more likely to vote for me than the other guy, so it's in my favor to get out the vote." It's not worth mentioning either party, since both would do it when the calculation falls in their favor. Of course the other party will try various methods of voter suppression....."your vote does't matter anyway."

It's not about telling people it's time to vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, all the comment about how "People are dumb for not knowing it's time to vote"

In same states and municipalities they make it very hard for certain citizens to vote. And one of the best ways also is to push the idea that your vote doesn't count.

This crap needs to be stopped

[Shaitan]

This kind of information should be held confidential, it is a serious problem that states are giving out this confidential information to campaigns, pacs, corporations, and individuals.

The rampant abuse this midterm cycle and now apps like these highlight this.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[Shaitan]

Has anyone ever considered that some of us don't believe in the system and don't want to add legitimacy to the results? It creates the illusion that the turd or shit sandwich you put on the podium was actually elected and represents the people which they most certainly do not. I don't support EITHER of your parties and I don't support the strawman alternatives you supply either. Bernie Sanders is the only one I've seen get traction with any integrity and look what they did to his campaign. There is no lesser evil there.

These efforts mirror efforts by the Kremlin to push voters to the polls and give legitimacy to Putin.

Re: I know I'm supposed to support get out the vot

[Anonymous Coward]

^ same

Big brother

[Anonymous Coward]

So what, instead of getting the government to play big brother, you do it for them, WOW.

Re: obnoxious subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Given your level of education in the US, if there was such a thing as "too stupid to vote", democracy would be long gone.

As I work as one of the poll workers

[Anonymous Coward]

As one of the poll workers at my local polling place, yep, I voted. Often the first one, but there was a line at poll open, so waited for a hole. Not a big deal to vote when I walk a table over, ask for my ballot, fill it in, and walk to the scanner

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[cayenne8]

I agree with privacy for political affiliation, but I would prefer the did/did-not vote data remain public. It is of statistical interest to me.

I wouldn't mind the vote/no-vote thing IF that information was anonymized.

I don't think it is the business of anyone whether a person votes or not....they have their reasons.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[ElizabethGreene]

In my case I need it to not be anonymized. I'm working on an inner join of voter data against death certificates to see if anything interesting comes up. I doubt it will, but I'd like to put the old "Cemetery votes for the incumbent" adage to rest.

(You can do this too. I'm only looking at my tiny county. There is a whole country of data out there if you want to play with it.)

If you choose not to decide..

[Anonymous Coward]

You still have made a choice.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly if election day rolls around you still need to be told ... where to vote ... You have no business going to polls at this point IMHO.

Well La Dee Da, look at me; I never move and my polling place never gets moved. I'm better than all of you losers who have to find out where their polling place is.

I was uninformed, so I didnt vote

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the stuff sent to me via mail, but it left me with more questions than answers.

I didnt take the time to find those answers and cross-verify them.

So I didnt vote.

Most co-workers who did vote could not answer my questions.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[cayenne8]

In my case I need it to not be anonymized. I'm working on an inner join of voter data against death certificates to see if anything interesting comes up. I doubt it will, but I'd like to put the old "Cemetery votes for the incumbent" adage to rest.

Well, you'd still not need live voter info it they voted or not.

Just simply scan for voter with dead....as that no one that is dead should even BE on the active voter list, you know?

If they're dead, they should not be on the voter list to begin with.....eh?

They don't know.

[Hallux-F-Sinister]

The "records" are wrong, so they may think they know, but they don't. If anyone asks, I'll tell them that whether or how I voted is none of their, (or anyone else's but mine and the secretary of state in my state who runs the voting system,) goddamned motherfucking business, and that they can fuck off if they don't like it.

I consider the right to vote to imply the right to abstain in protest, which is itself a form of voting. I will not be shamed or intimidated into either not voting, OR voting.

Fuck you if you don't like it. My vote is MINE, to bestow or NOT as I fucking goddamned well please.

Sick of this fucking bullshit.

White Flight is Fear of Crime not Fear of Melanin

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the questions they had already asked us was for a show of hands of everyone who had been the victim of auto theft or vehicle break-in or if someone they knew had been. Nearly every hand in the courtroom went up (including mine).

I thought it was a fairly ridiculous question since that county has one of the highest rates of auto theft in the whole US. They stole my boss's truck that was parked right next to mine a couple months before that. My car has been broken into a few times, but they never thought it was worth stealing the whole thing. Or maybe they couldn't drive a stick.

Oh. So you're either in an area with lots of blacks or you're near such an area. Got it.

I guess you'll have to virtue signal now but we both know it's true.

Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote

[Agripa]

Drives like this always make me think something along the lines of "hey I know you're so disconnected and ill informed that you didn't know today was voting day so please go out and make an ill informed decision"... Still, maybe in aggregate it these things are for the best.

I'm too well informed; I know my voting is a waste of time.