Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Six Degrees of Voting

michael posted about 10 years ago | from the who's-keven-bacon-voting-for? dept.

Politics 80

An anonymous reader writes "Received a link to SixDegreesOfVoting.com that is a new take on the Registration drive concept. From the Manifesto: 'if we make sure everyone we know is voting, and they make sure everyone they know is voting, and so on, wouldn't everyone be voting?' Match it with a nice flash map showing linked signups, it looks pretty cool (albeit leaning solidly to the left right now)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh great... (2, Insightful)

CodeWanker (534624) | about 10 years ago | (#10443217)

People who need to be prodded to the polls with a sharp stick aren't going to be well-enough informed to cast their votes meaningfully.

A lot more is at stake than the presidential election: all the house of representatives, a third of the senate, and lots of state and local elections.

When you force the ignorant into the polling places, they will most likely vote for every selection, even the ones they know nothing about. So you wind up with candidates getting votes because of their party affiliation or their cool-sounding names. That's the last thing we should be pushing for.

Re:Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10443422)

I thought we were in a democracy not a republic. I would hold that anything that gets people interested in politics would be good.

Re:Oh great... (2, Informative)

moofdaddy (570503) | about 10 years ago | (#10443528)

I thought we were in a democracy not a republic. I would hold that anything that gets people interested in politics would be good.

No, we're in a republic. If we were in a democracy the electorate would vote directly for issues (tax cuts, raises, laws, etc). Instead, we vote for a series of people who make those decisions for us.

Re:Oh great... (2, Informative)

Krow10 (228527) | about 10 years ago | (#10444749)

I thought we were in a democracy not a republic. I would hold that anything that gets people interested in politics would be good.

No, we're in a republic. If we were in a democracy the electorate would vote directly for issues (tax cuts, raises, laws, etc). Instead, we vote for a series of people who make those decisions for us.

The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive. In the U.S., we are a constitutional democracy [state.gov] and are accurately described by both the terms "democracy" and "republic." The phrase "direct democracy" refers to the form of government where citizens vote directly on issues, and the U.S. is not a direct democracy. But a representative democracy it is still a democracy and it is incorrect to say either that the U.S. is not a democracy or that the U.S. is not a republic.

Cheers,
Craig

Re:Oh great... (1)

OreoCookie (814421) | about 10 years ago | (#10444052)

This is not a Troll. It is a legitimate viewpoint held by many people.

Re:Oh great... (3, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 10 years ago | (#10444516)

People who need to be prodded to the polls with a sharp stick aren't going to be well-enough informed to cast their votes meaningfully.


What does that mean? How informed is "well-enough informed to cast their votes meaningfully"?
How is one vote more meaningful than another?


The first thing we should be pushing for is for people to get out and vote. The second thing we should be pushing for is for arrogant snobs to STFU. I'll vote straight party line, I'll vote for cool sounding names. I'll vote for women I consider doable or people with an odd number of syllables in their name or whomever else I choice to vote for.


How someone might vote should never be the litmus test on whether they can or should vote.

Re:Oh great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10444696)

The second thing we should be pushing for is for arrogant snobs to STFU.
Isn't the "second thing" here a contraction of the first? I guess one deals with free speech and one deals with voting rights. Controlling a voter blocks speech is probably going to also control the populous opinion which will in turn affect your "first thing".

How someone might vote should never be the litmus test on whether they can or should vote.
That's how you'd vote eh?

I agree with your last point, but telling someone to sit down and STFU most likely will turn people away from your point of view. And result in the "arrogant snobs" becoming more loud. That's how a suppressed group generally responds, especially arrogant ones.

Aren't the freedom to speak and the freedom to vote tied together?

Re:Oh great... (1)

damiam (409504) | about 10 years ago | (#10445142)

The purpose of voting is to select the best candidate for the job. If someone doesn't have enough of an opinion to vote for themselves, then their vote only adds noise to the system. I'd rather not have an extra 50 million voters if they all voted for whoever's yard sign they last saw.

oh yeah? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 10 years ago | (#10446743)

What is the standard? How informed is informed enough? When is an opinion enough of an opinion? So voting based on the last yard sign I saw isn't enough. Is listening to talk radio? Reading one newspaper a day? Reading slashdot?

I respond to every time someone presumes to have some standard on who should vote and who is better off staying home. None of the big shots who presume to tell other people they shouldn't vote ever steps up with some specifics.

How do you decide my vote is only noise? When is my opinion enough?

Re:oh yeah? (1)

CodeWanker (534624) | about 10 years ago | (#10447310)

Good Lord, will you adolescents sit quietly long enough to actually apply your IQ to this? No one is saying people who don't vote Republican shouldn't vote. No one is saying people who don't Democrat shouldn't vote. If you haven't taken the time to reason through who the candidates are and why you would vote for one and/or vote against another, then stay home. Please. While the noise will probably cancel itself out 1) why risk it and 2) why distort the margin by which a body of ideas wins or loses in the national debate? Only an idiot would think that voting randomly is as good as voting based on careful reasoning. And we don't need any more idiots voting.

Re:oh yeah? (0, Flamebait)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 10 years ago | (#10447533)

If you haven't taken the time to reason through who the candidates are and why you would vote for one and/or vote against another, then stay home.

You still haven't come through with specifics. What is 'taking the time to reason'? What is careful reasoning? Can you apply some IQ can come up with an objective standard?

My concern is someone may read about a campaign to discourage the uninformed from voting or "why distort the margin by which a body of ideas wins or loses," and think 'I'm not happy about the war in Iraq, but I don't know enough about the other issues, so I won't vote.' Next thing you know you're drafted, up to your ass in sand, and taking up a collection to buy some body armor.

Or someone may think, 'I don't like the idea of the v.p. being a former trial lawyer, but what do I know? I'm an idiot.' Next thing you know you're performing an appendectomy on yourself with a spork because no doctor can afford the malpractice insurance to perform any actual surgery.

As for just going into the poll cold and voting randomly, I wouldn't recommend that. But I'll take it, if it gets someone who wasn't going to vote into the booth. Because maybe this time it's, 'well, I've got some time to kill until the 'shrooms kick in. Might as well vote.' And then next time it's, 'well, I guess I'll vote again. Might as well read some of the referendum questions ahead of time.' Who knows, some one who wasn't high up on the 'informed' scale might get involved and actually learn something.

The opposite approach, discouraging people from getting involved and voting, leads to a lot of, 'nope, still too stupid to vote again this year.'

What really gets me is, I read about uninformed voters and careful reasoning. Then I wonder, by what standard? How informed? How reasoning? Then I think about literacy tests, and bible reading, and stakes in the community. Why don't you just come out and say it. Enough with the code words; enough pussy-footing. 'Well informed' is code for christians, reciting bible passages in latin, white land owners. Just have the guts to admit it.

We don't need any more idiots going around telling other people they shouldn't vote.

You're uninformed if you think you shouldn't vote or that your vote doesn't count.

Re:oh yeah? (1)

CodeWanker (534624) | about 10 years ago | (#10447638)

Jeepers, mcmonkey. There is no one-size-fits-all time limit. The higher the IQ, the less time it takes to process something. That doesn't mean that a high IQ person will pick someone superior (since his frame of reference may be incorrect) or a low IQ person will pick someone inferior (since his frame of reference may be quite wonderful.) It's not pussy footing, it's individual responsibility. It seems to me you're just screaming and shouting trying to start a fight, or burning off hormones you've accumulated because you repulse mates you find desirable, or peeing on the furiture because you feel the need to mark some kind of territory over something. I can't wait to find out which one it is.

Re:oh yeah? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 10 years ago | (#10450352)

lol.

Re:oh yeah? (1)

trentblase (717954) | about 10 years ago | (#10451203)

Obviously anyone you can convince to vote feels confident enough in their decisions to cast the ballot. We're not talking about literally forcing people to vote against their will. We're talking about convincing them to vote by impressing upon them the importance of that vote. Maybe they think about it once they see the names for the first time in the booth. Is that enough thought for you? mcmonkey is completely right -- you haven't offered anything near a reasonable method for determining who should and shouldn't vote. Using the IQ-time argument, what IQ-time product (IQ*time) is nessesary to vote? Maybe the relationship isn't linear, so throw a constant in there. Give us details.

Great... (2, Funny)

brunson (91995) | about 10 years ago | (#10443280)

Now I'm going to get this viral link forwarded to me by 8500 people...

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10443465)

Not from Poland, you won't. Everyone forgets Poland...

Since when... (3, Insightful)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | about 10 years ago | (#10443387)

Is it my business whether or not my friends vote.

Like religion, it should be an individual decision and like religion, I find people who meddle in the affairs of others in these issues annoying.

Re:Since when... (2, Insightful)

ajrs (186276) | about 10 years ago | (#10443818)

and yet your vote, unlike your religion, can have an impact on the lives of your fiends and your friends' friends.

Your religion or lack there of, and how you practice it, will have an impact on who your friends are in the irst place.

Re:Since when... (4, Insightful)

Yokaze (70883) | about 10 years ago | (#10443957)

It is the business of friends to meddle in the affairs of their friends. That's the difference between friends and acquaintances. Of course, they should know whether it is prudent in that particular matter or not. That is the difference between friends and "friends".

In your case, it doesn't seem prudent. But that doesn't mean it is never prudent.

However, let me point you out a little difference to religion.

Contrary to religion is not about makeing you choose a certain party.

Next, wether you like it or not, your life is affected by politics. There are not a lot people that don't care how their life is affected by it and have no particular opinion on anything. But most people say something along the line of: "Well, what I do/say doesn't matter anyway". They have given up.

Re:Since when... (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | about 10 years ago | (#10444150)

It is the business of friends to meddle in the affairs of their friends. That's the difference between friends and acquaintances. Of course, they should know whether it is prudent in that particular matter or not. That is the difference between friends and "friends".

Your certainty of social obligation (rolls eyes) leads me to believe you must be a liberal.

Re:Since when... (1, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 10 years ago | (#10446145)

Social obligation is a liberal idea. It is disapproved of by the reactionary right, and other sociopaths.

Re:Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10447483)

That fact that you roll your eyes leads me to believe you're a drama queen.

Re:Since when... (3, Insightful)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 10 years ago | (#10443965)

Wow. You're 2 for 2.

Religion, like voting, is a community descision. People who are members of your community (and not in the YMCA/United Way meaning. I mean the folk who are your real kith) have a duty to share their views with you, and you have an opinion to share your views with them. If you don't, then they're not kith.

It is your busiess that your friends vote because if they don't vote, then the elected officials don't care about them and the government will not bend to assist them.

It is your business what religion your friends are. Formal or informal, agreeing or disagreeing, knowing how a person relates to the divine is part of knowing a person. At the very least, you need to know if you can invite them to be your kid's godparent or trust them to keep the kid from being brainwashed by organized religion.

Oh, and that "meddling" you're referring to--that's called DEMOCRACY.

Re:Since when... (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | about 10 years ago | (#10444115)

Go back and read my post. I never said it wasn't my business what religion my friends are.

My objection was meddling in other's religious affairs. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you so I'll spell it out. I know the religion of my friends. I don't nag them to go to church or temple. That would be one instance of the difference.
As to voters, my personal feeling is that if someone doesn't care to vote, they probably aren't informed and probably should not vote. Just my opinion, but I'm entitled to it.

Re:Since when... (1)

White Roses (211207) | about 10 years ago | (#10444061)

Good point, but you're not really meddling, per se. You're not saying, "Go to my church, heathen." It's more like saying, "Go to a church|temple|mosque|wicca circle." You can encourage your friends to vote without encouraging them to vote for someone in particular, if you take my meaning.

And besides, it's not like knocking on a door, or calling during dinner time. When the topic du jour rolls around to politics in general, just say you hope your soap-box-toting friends are going to back up their wind-baggery with a vote. I've actually used that phrasing. The friends (both of them) had a laugh, but I got my point across.

Of course, if you and your friends never actually discuss anything even remotely political, then yeah, maybe it is meddling.

Humanity is your business. (2, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 10 years ago | (#10444737)

Proding someone who they are voting for and why is meddling. Just saying, 'Hey, there's an election coming up. Are you registered?' is not meddling.

If you were out with a friend and spouse and starting needling them on their choice of birth control--that might be meddling. If your friend starting coughing up blood, saying, 'do you need a doctor?' is not meddling.

I am a little surprised someone who chose the name HotNeedleOfInquiry is worried about being meddlesome.

Re:Humanity is your business. (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | about 10 years ago | (#10445033)

I am a little surprised someone who chose the name HotNeedleOfInquiry is worried about being meddlesome.

Don't be. It's merely a reference to the spaceship in Niven's Ringworld, not the Kzinti instrument of torture.

Worse are some of those who do vote... (3, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | about 10 years ago | (#10444976)

People who cannot name their own Senators or Representatives...

We harp on not having enough people voting but we ignore the bigger problem of having people vote who don't know the issues let alone the players.

Re:Worse are some of those who do vote... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10447513)

We harp on not having enough people voting but we ignore the bigger problem of having people vote who don't know the issues let alone the players.

And this is the result of poltical cultism. The 2 major parties have resorted to using Cult tactics, as opposed to informing voters. Their members don't vote for issues, they read the ballots and look for "republican" or "democrat", their cult members. It's all a rather brainless process nowadays.

As long as people vote that way, they won't vote their conscience, let alone be able to name their elected officials.

Re:Since when... (2, Interesting)

jmccay (70985) | about 10 years ago | (#10445933)

That depends on how much your beliefs mean to you. Voting for President of the United States is your chance to tell government that you like a particular candidate and where he, maybe she in the future, stands on the issues.

In this election, a lot is a stake. The candidates are not even close on a lot of issues! Let's take a geek issue in bioscience. Stem Cell research. Kerry is for using stem cells harvested from an aborted human fetus. While Bush banned the harvesting of new cells from an aborted human fetus while allowing research to continue on current cell lines.
Based on the arguments made by John Kerry, one would think that human fetus stem cells are the only option. That's not true. Already, a man has had a new jaw bone grown on is should blade from a stem cell harvest from his own bone marrow.

I use this example to show you that by not voting you are letting someone else choose where research money is spent, and other tax money is spent. Consider other issues like riding our reliance on oil.

Re:Since when... (3, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 10 years ago | (#10446150)

The Dems may win, for a reason that is not being captured in the polls.

They're ALL gonna vote, because of the opposition to the Bushinista clique.

Republicans, discouraged by their choices will stay home...

One good point... (3, Insightful)

Thunderstruck (210399) | about 10 years ago | (#10443518)

That is somewhat counter-intuitive:

When will we see a nationwide campaign encouraging people not to vote if they don't care? Or what about people who just don't have the time to do the homework? I know too many people who vote based purely on party or distant relationship than on merit.

Re:One good point... (2, Insightful)

moofdaddy (570503) | about 10 years ago | (#10443649)

That is somewhat counter-intuitive: When will we see a nationwide campaign encouraging people not to vote if they don't care? Or what about people who just don't have the time to do the homework? I know too many people who vote based purely on party or distant relationship than on merit.

Voting based on party is not nessasarily a bad thing. A party designation allows the less then informed citizen to have an idea on where a canidate stands on a given set of issues. No, it doesn't give you a detailed idea of the policies they would implement, but most people don't know that anyway.

People vote base on a number of consicuous and unconscience clues. Be it from the way the canidate holds himself, to the way the canidate looks, to the general impression they get of him, whether they trust the canidate or not. Is this the ideal way to elect a president or canidate for another office (which is most of the time chosen based on who the incumbent is), no of course not. But it is the way the situation is and it is the way things have been since the system began.

party lines (1)

poptones (653660) | about 10 years ago | (#10445251)

You mean like how republicans are for smaller government and less meddling and dems are for bigger government and more meddling? How republicans are strong on security? Like the way shrub took us from a budget surplus into a deep-ass debt? The way he lied to the nation about the reason for draggin us into a war that has made the world a much more violent place? The way clinton kept the fed cranking dollars until it made the japanese bleed money, thereby reducing our foreign debt? The way we enjoyed more prosperity under democratic presidents for the last two decades than under any meddling republicans? The way reagan made it an almost holy crusade to drive "enforcement" into people's bedrooms? The way the present administration uses religion to tie the hands of science and commerce?

Those party lines?

Looks to me more like a giant ball of rubber bands.

Re:party lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10446717)

Looks more like a moron who has no idea wtf he's talking about. You gotta stop listening to Michael Moore. It's frying your brain.

Re:One good point... (3, Interesting)

KilobyteKnight (91023) | about 10 years ago | (#10443722)

When will we see a nationwide campaign encouraging people not to vote if they don't care? Or what about people who just don't have the time to do the homework?

I like your ideas. The fewer voters there are, the more my vote counts :)

Re:One good point... (1)

quintessent (197518) | about 10 years ago | (#10448116)

I like your ideas. The fewer voters there are, the more my vote counts :)

If only they could get a proportional set of people not to vote. Unfortunately, it will be the younger voters who would mostly listen, people who already vote in small numbers. The older set seems to be quite comfortable checking in to the polls every couple of years to fulfill their civic duty.

For the rest of us, the response is more like, "Does that mean I gotta get up from this chair? But Quake 4 just came out!"

Please don't Rock the Vote! (2, Insightful)

Krow10 (228527) | about 10 years ago | (#10443800)

When will we see a nationwide campaign encouraging people not to vote if they don't care? Or what about people who just don't have the time to do the homework? I know too many people who vote based purely on party or distant relationship than on merit.
Tell it brother and/or sister! If the only section of the paper you read is Sports, please stay home on November 2nd. If you can't tell which party a candidate belongs to without the ballot indicating his affiliation, please stay home. If you can't be bothered to learn enough about a candidate to state why she should be elected to the office for which she is running, the leave that lever unpulled (even if you vote for other things.) Yes voting is a right -- but informing yourself before voting is a duty.

Cheers,
Craig

Re:Please don't Rock the Vote! (1)

TykeClone (668449) | about 10 years ago | (#10445528)

Yes voting is a right -- but informing yourself before voting is a duty.

That's the best way that I've seen this said.

Re:One good point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10444020)

I totally agree. I am not going to vote this year. People like to say "if you don't vote, don't complain" and "you have to vote - how can you NOT vote?!".

Well, I don't want Bush. I don't want Kerry. I don't want Nader. So exactly why should I be voting for any of them? That's just silly and narrowminded.

By the way, FIX THESE FUCKING POLITICS CATEGORIES SO I CAN DISABLE THEM IN MY PROFILE. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Re:One good point... (2, Informative)

Blacklantern (658383) | about 10 years ago | (#10444372)

Ah but, the more people who plant to vote, the more people are likely to take interest in the upcoming elections. Take this article for example [reuters.com] it shows that tv ratings for the first debate are up 26%. At the same time new voter registration applications are swamping county/state election workers [usatoday.com]

Re:One good point... (1)

TykeClone (668449) | about 10 years ago | (#10445550)

Ah but, the more people who plant to vote,

Are these the deceased people on the voter rolls?

/hopefully funny joke

One really bad point. (1, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 10 years ago | (#10444656)

When will we see a nationwide campaign encouraging people not to vote if they don't care?


I hope I never live to see that day.


And what makes you so qualified to judge how other people vote? So you know people who vote purely on party. Why isn't that on merit? What if I disagree with every stand in a party platform. Shouldn't I then vote for candidates of another party?


What makes someone so friggin' self righteous they think they can decide who should vote and who shouldn't?

Re:One really bad point. (1)

bluGill (862) | about 10 years ago | (#10447095)

I agree party is a bad reason to stay home. If you know that one party is more or less closer to your than the others (more than the 2 major ones) vote the party, I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with people who vote on looks. Who won the debates of 1960? Nixon if you listened to the radio, Kennedy if you watched them on TV. I don't care who you vote for so long as it is an informed decision. I don't want you voting for the best looking person, because that person might not be best.

Re:One good point... (1)

bug506 (584796) | about 10 years ago | (#10445115)

Billboards in Minneapolis have sprung up recently, saying "Don't Vote [wcco.com] ".

Some people are concerned because some of the billboards are in areas with high minority concentrations.

Clear Channel, the owners of the billboards, say that it is a teaser for a "non-product" ad campaign that will be revealed October 11th.

My guess: this is actually part of a pro-vote campaign. Get people riled up by telling them not to vote, then post new billboards with some consequences of what happens if you don't vote. (Like the prov-vote ad on the radio where the guy gets his car painted lilac by a body shop who "made the decision for him".)

Re:One good point... (0)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10445204)

revealed October 11th

Just in time to make sure that most of the voters they've spent the last two weeks telling not to vote won't even be able to register.

Re:One good point... (1)

bug506 (584796) | about 10 years ago | (#10445262)

I thought about that... but it turns out that in Minnesota, you can register on election day [state.mn.us] .

Re:One good point... (1)

TykeClone (668449) | about 10 years ago | (#10445586)

Ah - Minnesota - encouraging voter fraud since 2004.

In all seriousness - I hope that they check ID and confirm that voters should be eligble before registering them at the polls.

Re:One good point... (0)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 10 years ago | (#10445804)

No worse than Oregon, where you have a couple of check boxes to assert that you're legal to vote, but *nobody* is allowed to actually check that you told the truth in those check boxes (due to a public employees law that bans public employees from asking about immigration or citizenship status, from the governor's office all the way down to city government).

Re:One good point... (1)

bug506 (584796) | about 10 years ago | (#10445867)

Speaking of checking boxes, it looks like Florida is disqualifying [palmbeachpost.com] anybody who forgot to check "I am a US Citizen" on their registration form [state.fl.us] .

You have to be a US Citizen to vote, obviously. The thing is, if you look at the form, the oath that you have to sign also says "I am a U.S. Citizen." So by signing, you are swearing that you are a citizen, regardless of what the checkbox says.

Re:One good point... (1)

DavidTC (10147) | about 10 years ago | (#10446994)

Um, do we really need more Florida dumbasses this election? What kind of moron forgets to check the box saying he's a US Citizen on a voter registration form? That's rather the whole point of the form, to assert you are a citizen, and inform the government what districts you are in.

No, I suspect what's actually happening there is those people are not citizens, and just didn't pay attention to the oath.

from a co-founder of the site (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10443614)

The importance of this election makes it necessary to share opinions in meaningful debate, and get others around you excited and educated.

The site is a web of users that works on referrals at the user's discretion. Let's see how far it could go and if it will impact this election in a meaningful way. Never before has something like this been attempted in a political sense.

Use this link to sign up under the root of slashdot community:

http://www.sixdegreesofvoting.com/?ref=296&mac=1c9 7ed8d1c7b35eb3b3682974c5632e5 [sixdegreesofvoting.com]

Re:from a co-founder of the site (1)

w3rzr0b0t5 (816100) | about 10 years ago | (#10445927)

This election is no more or less important than the last one or the next one. Or any other ones. It might be the "most important one this century" because it's the first one this century. No, 2000 doesn't count, the millenium didn't begin until 2001. There was no "year zero".

In fact, SOME of "you people" may even say the next election is more important, since it will be the first time a woman receives the presidential nomination from one of the two major parties.

Bush by 15%, and that's the way the Clintons want it.

Re:from a co-founder of the site (1)

bmetzler (12546) | about 10 years ago | (#10446320)

In fact, SOME of "you people" may even say the next election is more important, since it will be the first time a woman receives the presidential nomination from one of the two major parties.

Or maybe both major parties. Who's to say the Democrats *won't* nominate a woman next time?

-Brent

Re:from a co-founder of the site (1)

w3rzr0b0t5 (816100) | about 10 years ago | (#10446754)

Brent, I think you may misunderstand me. When I spoke about a woman from a major party, I was referring to the Democrats nominating Hillary Clinton next time.

You may have assumed that I was referring to the Republicans nominating Condi Rice. I don't believe that will happen, though I do give the best odds for her being nominated as a Veep to Guiliani in '08. I'd rather have that ticket the other way around, myself.

Everyone will be registered (2, Insightful)

tritium6 (804406) | about 10 years ago | (#10443788)

If I get everyone I know to register, and they get everyone they know to register, then eventually everyone will be registered. Getting everyone to vote is a totally different matter.

Some Comments + Explanation (1)

pfrCalif (819380) | about 10 years ago | (#10444419)

Reading a few comments here I understand the feeling of distaste for uninformed voting but here are a couple notes (I'm one of the creators):

1. Of the people signed up, 65% have left some sort of comment. This means people who are signing up do feel a certain way and aren't signing just to signup.

2. Unlike rock the vote or those sorts of drives we don't actually DO anything or try to force anyone. We are instead a opinion site aimed at being as middle of the road as we can be. Our goal is to create as many informed and excited voters as possible.

3. The gimmicks on the site (yes I know they are gimmicks) like the flash map and user tree are aimed at making users come back and read more and say more. We hope when someone comes back and logs on they see something on the homepage or user comments that interests/angers/excites them.

4. Of the users who put themselves down as black (undecided) almost 70% ARE registered. This means that there is a good chance they will vote. That means that they need to be digesting as much information/opinion as possible in the upcoming weeks to make their own decision an informed one. Again, our site aims to help that.

I am personally all for telling people to stay home and not vote if they dont know the issues (and will move a comment to the front page if someone wants to say that on the site) but given the tendency for static voting (always along party lines) I think the more interest and dialog the better. You don't have to tell your friend to vote just tell him to take a look at the site and signup if its piques their interest.

red vs. blue (1)

poptones (653660) | about 10 years ago | (#10445275)

I hope next time you'll think twice before submitting a site driven by a pointless flash app to /. Would it really have been so fucking hard to offer a box that says "what state are you in?"

Re:red vs. blue (1)

pfrCalif (819380) | about 10 years ago | (#10445362)

actually it is supposed to display a state drop down if you don't have flash 6> . Probably not tested properly. I'll take a look.

I will get Kevin Bacon to vote. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10444851)

I'll get my R.A. from college to vote and she'll get her dad who wrote for 'Seinfeld' to vote and he'll get Wayne Knight to vote and he'll get Kevin Bacon to vote.

Don't Vote (3, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | about 10 years ago | (#10445132)

Honestly, if you don't have the desire to vote, do everyone a favor and don't let your uneducated opinion be heard. More is not better. I would rather have one surgeon performing open heart surgery on me then 100 farms.

People are under the deluded impression that Democracy is just. It isn't. It is just more likely to be just then other forms of government. However, it is perfectly within a democracies ability for 51% of the population to put the other 49% into slavery. The very reason why this nation has a bill of rights is because the founding fathers recognized that Democracy is less then perfect.

Just because 51% of the people say something is right, does not make them right. It just means more people believe one thing over another. Pick your favorite philosopher or political figure. No matter how accepted that person might be right now, at one point they articulated an opinion which the vast majority disagreed with. That didn't make that person wrong, just in disagreement with the rest of the world.

To be perfectly honest, I -don't- want more people to vote. I want less people to vote. As it is now, too many stupid people vote. Too many people vote based upon who has the prettier words, looks the best, or just fills them with a warmer feeling. I don't care if it is the stupid southern house wife you just doesn't trust any liberal because, well, no one in her family ever has since the civil war, or if it is a stupid stoner college student who really has no fucking opinion of his own, but is pretty sure everyone else hates Bush and so he should too. I don't want these people to vote. There input into the system isn't helpful. It is just noise. When they vote, I don't feel any sense of pride that two uneducated idiots made their decision based upon something that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Voting is a mechanism to reach a consensus as to who should rule. When you rule, you have the authority to pass laws that will result in violence on the population. I don't care if you pass a law to stop gumball theft. You just authorized violence against your population. Laws don't work without the threat of someone taking either your property or you freedom and sending you to jail.

So, when the decision is coming around as to who gets this power, take it fucking seriously. Don't tell idiots to add their input. If they don't want to vote, good, don't encourage them. The fewer idiots that vote, the more that my vote counts, and the more that non-idiots votes count.

I propose a different solution. Tell your friends not to vote. If they are stupid enough to do as you say, then you are doing the world a favor by keeping them from voting.

Re:Don't Vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10446023)

To be perfectly honest, I dont- want more people to vote. I want less people to vote. As it is now, too many stupid people vote. Too many people vote based upon who has the prettier words, looks the best, or just fills them with a warmer feeling.

And what, pray tell, makes this wrong? Just because it isn't how you would vote doesn't make it an invalid choice.

Get off your elitist high horse. If the majority of the people in the country want a good looking dolt as their leader, why shouldn't they get exactly that? Just because you don't like it? Since when did your opinions of what's important in a leader supercede the opinions of your fellow citizens?

Re:Don't Vote (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 10 years ago | (#10447224)

"Get off your elitist high horse. If the majority of the people in the country want a good looking dolt as their leader, why shouldn't they get exactly that? Just because you don't like it? Since when did your opinions of what's important in a leader supercede the opinions of your fellow citizens?"

Coz it's probably bad for them in the long run.

If you are smarter than someone in a particular area and they are about to do something stupid, it is not elitism to warn/discourage them. In fact it is your responsibility to do so.

But yeah, just because you're smart doesn't mean you should despise those who aren't. Or be patronizing.

Still I'm sure it is hard to do the right thing, given the things some people do... *sigh*

Re:Don't Vote (1)

Shihar (153932) | about 10 years ago | (#10453230)

"Get off your elitist high horse. If the majority of the people in the country want a good looking dolt as their leader, why shouldn't they get exactly that?"

So, let me see if I understand. I am an elitist because I don't want 'a good looking dolt' to be the most powerful man in the world? Yeah... that just reeks of elitism.

I suppose you would be for 51% of the population enslaving the other 49% if that is what the majority wanted, or would I be an elitist in calling that a bad idea too? More people voting does not result in a better decision, especially if you are encouraging idiots with no educated opinion to vote.

Nice idea but.... (1)

MrIcee (550834) | about 10 years ago | (#10445135)

...on the page where I can signup and it has a map and asks you to pick your state... I can't for the life of me find either Hawaii or Alaska. NORMALLY the weather channels put 'em near mexico :) but they are nowhere to be found on the map on this site (or at least I couldn't find it).

Are the designers so lame that they can't even name the 50-nifty-united states?

No aloha for me I guess :(

Re:Nice idea but.... (1)

bug506 (584796) | about 10 years ago | (#10445223)

It looks like that is the number one frequently asked question. :)

http://www.sixdegreesofvoting.com/faq.php

Q: Uh, where's Alaska and Hawaii?

A: Umm, we're working on it, our art department went on strike after finishing the 48 contiguous states. Please choose your second favorite state and it'll be up shortly.

Re:Nice idea but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10445338)

what about Iraq? Shouldn't that be up on there as well?

The Map (1)

kjones692 (805101) | about 10 years ago | (#10445483)

...is wicked cool. Interesting that the clusters are around Seattle, L. A., Chicago, the Twin Cities, NYC, Boston, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, and Raleigh, NC.

WARNING: Pyramid scheme! (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 10 years ago | (#10445690)

It is a pyramid scheme! They never work, and are usually designed by greedy cold-blooded individuals to cheat idiots out of their hardearned money.

Even if this one seems to lack step 2(=??), DONT FALL IT!

Re:WARNING: Pyramid scheme! (1)

fluckster (819376) | about 10 years ago | (#10445848)

Pyramid schemes involve money or some other form of consideration. I've seen no advertisements and no begging on the site.

Seems more like they are trying to "cheat" idiots out of wasting their vote.

Is this in my best interest? (1)

Fanro (130986) | about 10 years ago | (#10446057)

Ok, the topic has been mentioned bevore, but let me rephrase it a bit:

Why should I be interested in getting people to vote, regardeless of what they vote?

If I convince people to vote, who share my political opinion, then the benefit is obvious.

If I convince people to vote, who would vote for another candidate or party, then I act contrary to my political intentions. The election result I want is less likely to happen as it would be otherwise.

If I convince people to vote, that have no predetermined opinion and do not care about any candidate or party enough to vote on their own, then their vote will be pretty much random.
If there are more than two parties or candidates (and that is the case even in the US system) then they will most likely not vote the same as I will. So why should I convince them to vote?
It would only make sense if I convinced them to vote for MY candidate.

It is probably better for the system as a whole, if more people vote, because this way it an claim to stand for all these people, and should ideally reflect the opinion of more people.
But convincing other people to vote seems contrary to my personal and selfish interest.

Re:Is this in my best interest? (1)

fluckster (819376) | about 10 years ago | (#10446582)

Dude, I think you have a good point, but maybe you should lay off the hookah for a sec.

Don't you think your friends will be more likely to share your opinion anyway? If that's the case, it would be in your best interests to give a little shout out to make sure they registered and (more importantly) are gonna follow through on E-day.

Especially if your friends live in Florida. Ahem.

Re:Is this in my best interest? (1)

Fanro (130986) | about 10 years ago | (#10449120)

I dont live in florida or anywhere near the US, but I DO talk about politics with my friends.
(BTW, registering to vote is mandatory here, just not voting. Everyone gets an invitation per mail)

I just don't get the "convince people to vote just for vote's sake" part

I mean, talking with friends about why I would vote this and that and what would be the best for this country is all good and fine, but that is not what this site promotes.

But I do not think the election results will be any better or clearer if just more people vote, if these people still have no clear idea for what they vote.

to quote from the site: "hey, I have a stance on this election and I'm going to vote, are you?". What is the point if I do not offer them any help choosing their stance. If they do not have one by now, then they probably need help.

More people voting should be a side-efffect of my political actions, never the primary goal.

No represetation for /.ers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10447215)

'if we make sure everyone we know is voting, and they make sure everyone they know is voting, and so on, wouldn't everyone be voting?'

What is this thing called 'everyone we know'?

Im an Asshat (1)

Keebler71 (520908) | about 10 years ago | (#10447344)

Call me an Asshat but I like the fact that many people do not vote. In my mind, the only thing worse than people not voting, is uniformed people voting. I like the fact that you have to put forth at least a little effort to vote... at least then I know people have convictions about what they are voting about.

Re:Im an Asshat (1)

bw_bur (634734) | about 10 years ago | (#10451782)

the only thing worse than people not voting, is
uniformed people voting

Yep.. that's the problem.. all those stupid uniforms. Puts me right off!

Re:Im an Asshat (1)

Keebler71 (520908) | about 10 years ago | (#10456969)

funny... how often does a typo remain grammaticly correct but with a completely know meaning?

Um, let's think about this for a moment first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10447511)

Think of each person you know.

OK.

Now, do you want this person to vote?

If you do not feel sufficiently informed to vote, then please do not vote. We already have far too many people who mistakenly believe they are sufficiently informed, and vote.

Thinking you are sufficiently informed to vote when you are not, and voting, is remarkably similar to driving while intoxicated. And, I suggest, should carry similar penalties.

I'd start an anatagonist site... (1)

Julian Morrison (5575) | about 10 years ago | (#10448723)

I'd call it "six degrees of apathy and anarchism".

Except, I can't be bothered, and you can't make me.

What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10495755)

What if all your friends are non-voting felons and/or illegal immigrants?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?