WRT to the next major election where I live:
Displaying poll results.13161 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8480 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7395 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Internet Voting (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Internet Voting (Score:4, Funny)
I intend to vote early and often (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Same here but I think technically it is not the election in the place I live, so I had to vote that I don't intend to vote in that one, since I am not eligible (as an ex-pat at the moment)
If you don't vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
...you shouldn't complain.
While complaining is your right, it is somewhat irrelevant if you aren't willing to take part in the system.
This system is imperfect, I will agree with that, however it is the best option currently available.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I never vote: I am living in a country where voting is compulsory, so over 99% of the population votes.
And the thing is: it makes no difference, since everybody votes for the person who makes the best impression in some popular television quiz.
So the only way to protest is not voting.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not protesting, since you are not visible.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not protesting, since you are not visible.
As I wrote in the GP post, where I live voting is not a right but an obligation.
Voting is more than just choosing who goes to parliament (or congress or whatever), it is also giving away your right to decide for yourself and agreeing that somebody else decides instead. So, yes it is a protest.
Non voters are very visible. On one hand we are in the statistics: the number of people who refuse to vote is increasing every election. On the other hand: if I vote they do not know for who I voted, but if I do not vo
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the only way to protest is not voting.
Not really. It's compulsory to vote where I live, and all the people I know who don't vote are pretty much doing it out of laziness, so count yourself among those. Some of them try to come up with a way to rationalise their laziness as "thumbing their nose at the system", but it's bullshit. Sure, it's visible, but only in terms of the number of people who were too lazy or too stupid to vote.
Voting does make a difference. Some seats here were won but less than a thousand votes in the last election, and were recounted several times.
I'm not sure how it works where you live, but the way it works here is that candidates can nominate how their preferences should be distributed (as a voter you get to decide how to distribute your vote yourself but the how-to-vote card for each candidate gives a suggestion that a lot of people follow). So what happens is that there is some deal-making done with the minor candidates so that the others get their preferences. So even if you vote for a minor candidate you are still having a say. And some minor candidates are single platform, so if you happen to agree with their cause a vote for them is _really_ making your point, way more than simply not voting.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I still complain about none of the candidates being worth a damn, and it not making any real difference who I vote for? And the fact as a practical matter we live in a plutocracy?
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:4, Insightful)
The President should not matter as much as your representatives. And furthermore, the federal gubment should not assume powers that should be relagated to the states. We were intended to be a republic, where the governor of a state was more impactful to day-to-day life than the President of the United States. We are currently off track from the intended path. I have no idea how to get back on track. Perhaps insolvency will fix that for us?
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:5, Interesting)
One start would be to repeal/amend the 17th Amendment [wikipedia.org] to the constitution...and lets take senators OUT of the popular election process. This would help keep them more beholden to the states' needs they are supposed to be representing there, and also take away the lobbiest powers over there, since they won't need to spend so much of their time trying to get re-elected and raising bribes...err....campaign donations.
It seems like that would be a good place to start...
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be a good start. Then the next step would be to repeal the 16th amendment (direct taxation without redistribution) and establish a new one that funds the federal government out of the states' budgets. That way senators will have to choose whether to spend money on federal programs or keep the money in the state.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:4, Interesting)
Big picture, what's the virtue in the USA governing itself more through states instead of the Federal government? I've read the historical point below (the US started that way), and some tenuous predictions about how this would somehow improve the incentive structure for representatives, but what's the big argument? Is it a progressive libertarian programme starting at the top of the government food chain? Do units the size of a US state (between 600k and 37M) govern themselves better? Is it local chauvinism? Or is there no argument on principle and is it just a particular argument about specific US governance failures? Why favour states over federal government?
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Big picture, what's the virtue in the USA governing itself more through states instead of the Federal government?"
The key is diversity. I believe it's valid to compare societies to ecologies. We know that diversity of flora and fauna is important to maintaining an ecology. And the reason is relatively simple: given enough diversity, the gap left by a failure of one or more species will be filled by other species that adapt. Not all your eggs are in one basket, as it were.
The United States is supposed to be a Republic. With 50 (+) individual "experiments" in liberty and good government. Sure, some states will make bad decisions. But then people would "vote with their feet", and go to those states that had the better laws and policies. Call it evolution in action. It is both natural and healthy.
But impose uniformity, rather than diversity, and you lose all those benefits. No experiments or innovation are taking place. If a Federal policy fails (and there are lots of examples), then EVERYBODY suffers. And one bad mistake can make the whole thing come crashing down. 2008 was a dire warning.
Not to mention one world government or a "new world order". I cannot conceive of a worse idea for the future of humanity.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very interesting and it's helping me understand US devolutionists (or states' rights advocates or whatever you call them) better, and the history of America. Why do you believe that what's emerged isn't just the result of two and quarter centuries of that dynamic of individual State experiments playing out? I guess the answer to that has something to do with the income tax and the direct election of US Senators.
I also wonder how it would work internationally. Centralised sovereign states dominate the international economic and military landscape, and have for some time. Wouldn't an ecology of loosely federated states, in some form of moderated competition, have trouble representing its concerted interests on the world stage, undermining America's wealth and security?
I don't mean to bombard you with questions. This is an opportunity to pose questions about this position I've had for a while. Although I'm studying International Affairs now (with a smattering of Political Science and Sociology) I'm weak on history and on theories of government. That's just by the way, to let you know where I'm coming from.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:4, Informative)
"Why do you believe that what's emerged isn't just the result of two and quarter centuries of that dynamic of individual State experiments playing out? I guess the answer to that has something to do with the income tax and the direct election of US Senators."
In part, but I do not believe that the Senatorial elections were as important to the process as some believe. Maybe some. For the most part, it has come about simply by means of gradual usurpation of power by the Federal government. It has been a slow, insidious process but nevertheless undeniable. Much of it can be tracked back to certain Supreme Court decisions that supported the executive and legislative branches in legislation and regulation that they actually had no Constitutional authority to make.
Many Americans -- indeed, just about everybody -- are taught that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality. But that is actually not the case. The Supreme Court is indeed the final arbiter when it comes to decisions that relate to matters that lie within the Constitution. But it is NOT, and was never intended to be, the judge of what the Federal government's own powers should be (it being but one branch of that very government). As Jefferson said, in various ways and at various times: "The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself." -- Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution of 1798
The Supreme Court is as susceptible to corruption and power-grabbing as the other branches of government. Never doubt it, because it has happened. It has, in fact, declared essentially that the Federal government is supreme in all matters. But the Supreme Court was never actually granted the Constitutional authority to do that; any more than the kid next door has authority to declare himself king. That is explained here with perfect logic by James Madison, in his Report of 1800 before the Virginia legislature. Note that the "parties" he refers to are the States that together formed a "compact" to delegate some of their authority to a central government:
"The resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
I should point out that when told this, many people (who are not as schooled in the political history of the U.S.) will tell you this concept is hogwash, and that the Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of our laws. But history clearly shows us that is not actually the case, and never was.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Wouldn't an ecology of loosely federated states, in some form of moderated competition, have trouble representing its concerted interests on the world stage, undermining America's wealth and security?"
I can only argue that when we were more of a loose federation of states, our economy was more robust and our place on the world stage that much more prominent. What you say would seem to make sense, but the only historical examples we have are from our own past, and they say otherwise.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:5, Informative)
"Do units the size of a US state (between 600k and 37M) govern themselves better?"
"Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste." -- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Gideon Granger, 1800.
Note that Jefferson wrote this in a time when there were only 13 states, and a population of a couple of million, max. It is truer than even now, with 50 states and 300+ million.
Re: (Score:3)
Jefferson also wrote this at a time when the faster transportation method was a fast horse, and communications, ahem another fast horse with some pieces of paper transported..
Re: (Score:3)
It seems like that would be a good place to start...
That reminds me of the old joke:
Q: What do you call a boatful of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:4, Interesting)
haha. Another suggestion from the 'Don't don't know why this is, so lets change it back" crowd.
People got LESS representation with state legislator appointed senators.
Think about it. It means people running companies will also be a senator, a senator YOU have no recourse against.
For FUCK SAKE people, learn why we do something before whining about changing it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can I still complain about none of the candidates being worth a damn, and it not making any real difference who I vote for? And the fact as a practical matter we live in a plutocracy?
Sure ,and the best way to do that: vote for a non-candidate. Yourself, your mom, your dog, if you like. Like you said, it doesn't make any real difference who you vote for.
Write someone in, and go on record that you're active and engaged and participatory, but not supporting Lobbying Team D or Lobbying Team R.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, go right ahead.
Vote anyways, though. Vote for a third-party candidate, write in yourself if you like, but don't drop out of one of the 2 government processes that is at least in theory democratic rather than plutocratic (the other being jury duty).
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are other ways to participate, maybe more effective ways. For example, you can give money. You can protest. You can write policy suggestions. You can even write laws and try to find a representative to sponsor them. Or get hired by the bureaucracy. Most importantly, you can run for office yourself. Most of these are more difficult than voting but I bet you they have a greater effect on policy.
There's no exhaustive list of how you can participate in government. Voting is a small part of real participation. And no kidding, idealism aside, one vote really doesn't mean a heck of lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between not voting and not voting for anybody. You can still go in and vote incorrectly so it doesn't count but it gets registered that you are, in fact, interested in voting there just weren't any good candidates. Of course that doesn't work if you are in one of the weird places using voting machines, in which case the best action is to boycott the voting completely as it's going to be cheated anyway.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:4, Insightful)
...you shouldn't complain.
While complaining is your right, it is somewhat irrelevant if you aren't willing to take part in the system.
This system is imperfect, I will agree with that, however it is the best option currently available.
Non-voting is just as much a way of "taking part" as voting is. Election boycotts are political participation.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd vote, but the real problem with Democracy is that everybody else can vote too!
Re: (Score:3)
Politics is like owning a car: Whether you drive it or not has no bearing on whether you're allowed to complain about it's state of disrepair.
I don't vote because the system is broken and I will not support something that doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
no,l you don't vote because you are a narcissistic fool. Complaining about it being broken is just an excuse.
All systems are broken, but I guess ignoring it mean it will fix itself.
Quite frankly, I don't think you should be allowed to drive if you don't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm allowed to vote, so should not complain? I though there was a thing about no taxation without representation here.
If I was given the chance to vote I would probably vote for the little guys that have zero media coverage. It's not changing much whoever I would vote for anyhow, eventually the US might get a colorful representation of ideologies like most european countries do. Not perfect across the pond but the people opinions do seem more represented rather than only the corporations will.
Re:If you don't vote... (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't vote you shouldn't complain.
You should really look up the definition of democracy. Here's a hint: it isn't "showing up at the polling station every few years".
The "complaining" that you're complaining about is a part of the democratic process. Democracy isn't just about voting. It's also about actively voicing your political opinions. George Carlin [youtube.com] with his "I don't vote" skid has made more impact on this country than the ballots that he didn't cast.
Re: (Score:2)
The "system" is a sham, and participating in it just makes you complicit in the ridiculous spectacle.
While this is, perhaps, not quite as obvious to those in US, where I can vote but choose not to, it is quite obvious to Russian citizens, where I can also vote, but choose not to for the same reasons.
Perhaps there was a time when voting indeed made a difference, at least in aggregate. Now is not that time, and I am not interested in lending a hand to a farce that is being played. They will just have to keep
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the US system is *not* the best option currently available. The two party system is inferior to the multi-party, proportional representation system commonly used in Europe -- at least if you want policy to more accurately reflect public attitudes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
[1]: Public indecency, sexual lewdness, illegal dumping of toxic waste.
I know you're being funny, but urine isn't toxic.
Re: (Score:2)
If the East Texas justice system's handling of patent lawsuits is any indicator, urine doesn't have to be toxic for a charge to be leveled in Texas.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"I saw I was driving off the road, so I just decided to close my eyes," the non-voter said, smugly.
Voteception (Score:2)
Hehe, I just voted on voting. Voteception!
Register? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're registered as living in a municipality ("still living"), with details like age ("old enough to vote") why would one need to re-register to vote? Who thought of this system? Why is this system still in place? It seems unnecessary.
Re:Register? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because there's a very large number of people who won't go through the effort to register but if they did, would probably vote in a way that would give one party a significant advantage. Keep in mind the youthful optimism of many people as they turn eighteen.
I do support automatic registration at eighteen and whenver renewing a drivers' license, and I even support allowing EVERYONE to vote, regardless of their felony status. Heck, I'd let actively-incarcerated prisoners vote if they are smart enough to register for an absentee ballot. I'd even let them have the choice of registering either where they were before conviction or where they now live. I figure that there shouldn't be enough convicts to massively skew the vote, and if there are so many convicts that the vote would be skewed, maybe they do have something legitimate to say, even as convicts. Might also change some of the policies in prison-industry towns like many found in Texas.
Re:Register? (Score:5, Interesting)
Heck, I'd let actively-incarcerated prisoners vote if they are smart enough to register for an absentee ballot. I'd even let them have the choice of registering either where they were before conviction or where they now live. I figure that there shouldn't be enough convicts to massively skew the vote, and if there are so many convicts that the vote would be skewed, maybe they do have something legitimate to say, even as convicts. Might also change some of the policies in prison-industry towns like many found in Texas.
This actually brings up a non-trivial issue: If you have a prison in your district, in most states the inmates count for determining congressional districts, but cannot vote because they are convicted felons. That gives the people outside of the prison a significantly more powerful vote than the people not in those districts. The effect is not totally different from the 3/5 Clause which meant that white Virginians had a vote that counted something like 40% more than white New Yorkers.
Re:Register? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's an interesting idea. Lock away all the people who break a law, and simultaneously take away their right to support a government that might change that law.
Imagine the privacy advocates outcry if they did introduce mandatory electoral enrollment though. "It's a plan for the government to track our every move. Wake up people!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I do believe in many localaties/states, there are rules/laws to the effect that if you go through a certain number of elections without showing up to vote...they will drop you off the rolls, so you would need to re-register if you've not voted in any thing for a long time...worth
Re: (Score:3)
Second people do change sides from time to time, even politicians change parties, sometime while in their elected position. If when I was a foolish 18 year old I registered Democratic and a few years later I matured enough to de
Re: (Score:2)
OK then they're not eligible to register either -- so it does seem like a needless extra step. And I'm a little uncomfortable at how easy things get when you ARE registered -- where I live (western Mass.) they don't even ask for ID when I vote. It'd be OK with me if it were a little harder to get in the door, but once you can prove you have a right to be there it doesn't matter whether you remembered to get your name added to a list ahead of time.
If you chose "Not registered; intend to vote" (Score:3, Informative)
If you chose "Not registered; intend to vote", then you better register ASAP. A lot of places with Republican state legislatures are doing away with the right to register and vote on the same day, in order to keep new voters from voting. Also make sure to bring a government issued photo ID both to register and to vote, as that is another tactic that they are using to suppress turnout among the unwanted (i.e. low income) demographics. After all, the most common government issued photo id is the driver's license, and guess which demographic is least likely to be driving. Now guess how people in that demographic most often vote.
Their anti-democratic tactics can only work if you let them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you chose "Not registered; intend to vote" (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? You register, and your name goes on the list for the precinct. Then you come in and vote, and they check your name off, making it impossible to vote twice.
Someone could, theoretically, vote for another person, but they would quickly be found out if that person came in and tried to vote. It's a lot of risk for little reward, and the risk increases linearly with the number of illegal votes you try to cast in this manner. Can you cite any sources showing that this actually occurs?
It's an imaginary problem being used as a pretext to discourage people from taking part in the governance of the country. That should be obvious to any intellectually honest person.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad thing is voter fraud doesn't usually take the form of person taking the time to vote. Besides that single vote will be drowned out by the multitude of other votes coming from the rest of the precinct. To really pull this off you will have to pay a lot of people to pose as someone else and vote multiple times at multiple voting locations. This seems inefficient, expensive and unlikely.
The irony being the most likely and used method to commit voter fraud is absentee voting usually performed by a politica
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Honestly, in my opinion, they should agree to take whomever wants to go (and you could certainly say you're voting for their party and not do so). I was working for the Democrats in my area and we were doing door to door work talking about the election. If someone says to me "I want to vote, but I need a ride" we shouldn't provide one?
Re: (Score:2)
Or...maybe someone or
Re: (Score:3)
I was giving a possible answer to someone asking a question on "what could happen" if no photo id was required.
I wouldn't put it past groups to do this, I mean, there ARE pretty well documented instances of dead people voting...I think Chicago and IL in general has a good bit of that in their history.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an imaginary problem being used as a pretext to discourage people from taking part in the governance of the country. That should be obvious to any intellectually honest person.
Unless you count the whole voting is a right of citizenship part.
I can't exactly vote in Canadian or Guatemalan or Irish elections just because I happen to be in the country.
How is that even relevant? If you're not eligible to vote somewhere, you wouldn't be registered. You should re-read GP post in full, especially the part about registration.
Poll Tax (Score:2)
First, not everyone has a ID that is valid for voting* and making people who don't have one anyway pay to get one is basically a poll tax. Shouldn't an ID card required to vote be free?
*The following government issued photo IDs are not valid for voting: National Labs ID, State University IDs, Community College IDs, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, virtually every state that requires a gov-issued photo id in order to vote....does have a program to give anyone that wants one in the state (citizens) a FREE state id with photo and all....good for voter identification.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe some places allow you to vote without showing a government issued photo ID. That just seems like common sense to me.
I can believe it, and there's no need for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Err...this isn't something new, at least not in any states I've lived in before. Not a republican conspiracy....I've never lived in a state all my years that let you register the day of the vote. This is too easy to defraud and vote multiple times. Actually , what state ar
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't get my license until I was 23. Instead, I carried around a NON-driver's license. Big conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
My state I believe requires you to remember to register 60 days before the vote. What purpose does that serve? Because I forgot to register, my opinion doesn't count? What problem is it solving?
Re: (Score:3)
Which they could still do if you registered the day-of, they'd just have to handle your ballot as a provisional.
vote early, vote often (Score:2, Insightful)
if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain about the outcome. If you can't vote, then you should complain about the outcome. Pencil and paper, cheap, low tech, and audit-able.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote early, vote often
Reminds me of a White Collar episode where they try to take down a corrupt politician. (You know it is TV, because they 1. they try, and 2. they succeed.)
Peter: Mozzie votes??
Neal: More often than you might think...or approve of.
Missing option! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a citizen, you insensitive clod.
But that will be remedied as soon as USCIS allows it, which is in about a year and a half plus processing time. (Canadian, immigrated to the US on a fiance visa.)
Re: (Score:2)
Vote in your local elections! (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know who is your representative to your county Board of Supervisors? Do you know who is your delegate for state senate? Did you vote in their elections? Have you met them? Unlike the president, these people have phone numbers and will usually talk to you.
U.S. Presidents come and go, and life pretty much remains the same for us as individuals. Your county government can drop a shopping center next to your house, decide where your kids go to school, or clobber your property value. Your state government can decide how long your commute takes, or how many employers want to move in (or out), or how much college costs. Both tax almost as much as the federal government. Yet hardly anybody votes in local elections!
If you can't vote FOR a candidate ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Missing one (Score:5, Funny)
Where's the selection "I'm not even going to vote in this poll"?
Registered, Will Vote, but don't want to (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been voting since 1992 (I turned 18 a week after the 1988 election). The cumulative disappointment year after year is now crushing. I still vote, but with enormous despair.
Re:Registered, Will Vote, but don't want to (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been voting since 1992 (I turned 18 a week after the 1988 election). The cumulative disappointment year after year is now crushing. I still vote, but with enormous despair.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." -- Emma Goldman
Missed an election then, did you? (Score:2)
The biggest mistake any sub-set of American voters have made in the last five years, that I can see, was sitting out the 2010 election. I'm convinced half the problems that have ensued would not have happened if only the young and enthusiastic had realized that "the President proposes, Congress disposes". You can't afford to sit any of them out.
Oh, and by the way, in our country it's called "being en
get over it elections haven't changed (Score:2)
Elections really haven't changed since the Athenians were voting. Sure the process has changed, but they have always been a festival of shit slinging.
So quit bitching about how much worse they are today, at least today you can do some research from your home.
Missing option: Dead (Score:2)
I'm dead. I can't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
To some politicians, there doesn't appear to be a causality between those two sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm dead. I can't vote.
Don't worry. In Chicago, you still get to vote. Twice or three times, actually. You just won't get to choose who or what you are voting for. (It doesn't matter if you are or ever were a resident of Chicago. Your vote still is counted there.)
What does "major" mean? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the vast majority will say they are registered and intending to vote in the next "major" election -- because people only vote in elections they consider to be "major."
Re: (Score:2)
If I think it matters (Score:2)
Vote for the one you hate least... (Score:2)
Even if it's a close call. Or at least write in your favorite. It upsets the party bosses which makes it worth standing in line. Oh, and take a candy bar in when you vote. For some reason, it makes the whole process a lot more tolerable. A hotel I voted at in San Francisco handed out truffles and good coffee. When I got there, I thought, "Yes, democracy is ALL RIGHT!"
I was a lot younger.
Rapid Fire Civic Lesson for Americans (Score:3)
The United States of America is a Federal Republic, not a democracy. Rather than the people directly governing, they choose representatives who govern on their behalf, thus "republic". The rules that govern elections were first established in the Constitution (ratified in 1789) and then amended periodically.
You must be at least 18 years old to vote (by Constitutional Amendment) on the first Tuesday in November of an even numbered year. If you live in a US state, you have 2 Senators, regardless of the state's population size. Each Senator had to be at least 30 years old when they were elected and 1/3 of the total of 100 come up for election every even numbered year. You can directly vote for each of them when their must stand for election every 6 years. Until the late 19th Century(?), Senators were voted in by state legislators.
You live in a single US House of Representatives district. Your Representative had to be at least 25 years old when they were elected and all 438 of them nationwide stand for election every even numbered year. As the population has been shifting towards the Sunbelt, each Census has resulted in more and more Reps coming from Sunbelt states and fewer from states losing population.
You don't vote for President, you essentially "indicate a preference". The President, minimum age of 35, is actually elected by the Electoral College, bunches of political party members who cast their votes around 6 weeks after Election Day. Each state gets a minimum of 3 members, 1 for each Senator and 1 for each member of the House of Representatives, so Wyoming gets 3 and California gets about 54 for a grand total of 538/- electors. Nearly all the states use a winner-take-all approach, so when a presidential candidate receives a majority of the votes from a given state, all of that state's electoral college members are obliged to cast their vote for that candidate when the Electoral College convenes. If one refuses, they are known as a "faithless elector". Two states, Maine and Nebraska(?) use proportional representation for their electors instead of "winner take all". Other states are considering this approach.
Debates endlessly rage about the merits and demerits of this system. For good and ill it has evolved into its current state over the last 222 years. I did not consult any notes, just going from memory here so feel free to chime in...
As for the impact of this system, political scientists have simplified the analysis of Presidential elections by labeling states as either "red", "blue", or "swing" (meaning neither red nor blue). A red state is expected to cast its electoral votes for the Republican candidate, a blue state for the Democratic candidate, and a swing state is up for grabs. Once the single Republican and single Democratic candidate face off after their respective party conventions at which they are formally designated as the candidates, the major focus is on the swing states as they try to win a majority of votes and thus all the electors in each of those states. Many of the "solid red" and "solid blue" states will be nearly ignored other than as sources of funds, volunteers, and other resources. e.g. California has been a reliably "blue" state for many years so the blue and red candidates will only briefly visit it a few times prior to election day. No semi-serious political scientist expects a Republican candidate to win California's electoral votes in 2012. Until another state is added to the Union (still a possibility - I'm lookin' at you Puerto Rico), the winning number is 270 electoral votes. The requirement only to win 270 electoral votes rather than the nationwide popular vote is why a number of candidates have become President without getting at least 50% of the nationwide popular vote (Bush in 2000, Clinton in 1996(?), Clinton in 1992, Kennedy in 1960(?), Wilson in 1912(?), Hayes in 1876, Lincoln in 1860(?). Most of these were caused by third-party candidates splitting the popular vote among more candidates. The two most contested el
Missing option (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Canadian in the USA, and I'm not allowed to vote *anywhere*. F*ck you, Harper!
Biased sampling (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully next time round... (Score:2)
...they won't close the polling office three hours early and deny me and several thousand others the opportunity to cast our vote, like they did in 2010.
Those votes would seriously have swung it and we'd've ended up with a single party government instead of this unholy clusterfuck we have now.
Gerrymandering nullifies my input, but no problem. (Score:2)
I'm in District 6 of South Carolina, and Jim Clyburn owns it.
It's a "throwaway" district so black folks can have a guaranteed seat, and that's a fair trade since gerrymandering IS democratic in "statewide" terms. Voluntary segregation isn't wrong, unlike forced segregation.
It also means there is no point in my voting either for (not happening) or against (futile) him. I don't mind since that District has low taxes and I live on the edge of it.
Re: (Score:3)
had to google about gerrymandering.
now that's just ridiculous and system perverting.
sounds like the perfect reason why usa needs more parties.
US citizen living abroad, registered to vote (Score:3)
As an American living in Switzerland, I don't really fit into any of the categories: as a foreigner, I'm not allowed to vote in elections in Switzerland (not unreasonable, and I don't mind it).
I am, however, registered to vote in the US, and the government will send me a ballot electronically (they gave me the option of postal mail, but I'm lazy) when the next election rolls around.
I'm quite pleased with not having to see all the political ads in the US as election season approaches.
Are those directions about the poll or elections? (Score:4, Funny)
I think that's a pretty accurate summary of the problems with elections.
Re: (Score:3)
It stands for "with regard to". Yes, that makes the title "With regard to to the next major election..."
Re: (Score:2)
With Respect To
Re: (Score:2)
I fall into the second category you mentioned there. I'm not paying enough attention to the politics back home to be able to make an informed decision, so I've taken myself off the roll. I'll see about registering again when I eventually move back there.
Re:Selection Bias (Score:4, Funny)
They probably figured that you wouldn't want to vote in this poll for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
BAM
Re: (Score:3)
I always vote, even though my candidates have no chance of winning - not voting is conceding your opinion. I believe in middle ground, cooperative government, not the bickering two party system in place in the United States, but there is no real moderate party in the US (ok, there are some like Modern Whig, but they are still in infancy).
Incidentally, the US has conscientious objectors because a group of Mennonites refused to wear a uniform and died in Leavenworth beaten and left naked on their cell
Re: (Score:3)
God, I hope not...and so far according to the polls, I don't see it happening, especially if the election were held today.
Unless the economy turns around in a year (don't see it happening) and the republicans really blow it, I see Obama as a one-termer.
BHO might be a really great guy to go have a beer and talk with....he's a smart guy.
But frankly, I'd rather vote for a small soap dish with no personality than him.