11–20 of 61 posts
Meh, why is turnout something one should encourage? Put another way, why should the voices of those who could barely be bothered to show up be amplified over those of those who really care? I don't want 100% turnout; I do want the people who don't care to stay home. I'd also like to only allow people who can pass the citizenship test given to prospective naturalised citizens to be able to vote, but that's an entirely…
Wouldn't this lead to a TON of games? Now if you're a Democrat in Nebraska, or a Republican in California, it's in your best interest NOT to vote. That way the winner-takes-all majority in your state would get less of an impact. On the other hand, all of the Democrats in California and Republicans in Nebraska would definitely want to show up to the polls. Basically if you think your party will win, you want to show u…
Which is why the votes ought to be pooled across states, so all the Republican votes in California don't get lost, just because the state majority ended up voting Democratic.
Meh, why is turnout something one should encourage? Put another way, why should the voices of those who could barely be bothered to show up be amplified over those of those who really care? I don't want 100% turnout; I do want the people who don't care to stay home. I'd also like to only allow people who can pass the citizenship test given to prospective naturalised citizens to be able to vote, but that's an entirely…
Wouldn't that favor small states, who can mount a turnout campaign with far fewer workers?
I think it would be proportional. Larger states have more workers to draw on. The question is, how are the 'get out the vote' drives funded? By the parties? The state? It has an appeal though. You have to exercise your right to vote in order to be represented. Is that impacting your liberty to not vote if you don't want to?
Yes.
Some reasons we have the Electoral College: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_St...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
Even in the UK, where the concept originates, a lot of people view it as a bad idea. The issue right now is that nobody can agree what to change it to, since people gravitate towards the voting system that helps them in the next election cycle (and the big two want it to remain a two-party system).
Meh, why is turnout something one should encourage? Put another way, why should the voices of those who could barely be bothered to show up be amplified over those of those who really care? I don't want 100% turnout; I do want the people who don't care to stay home. I'd also like to only allow people who can pass the citizenship test given to prospective naturalised citizens to be able to vote, but that's an entirely…
I think most people do care, but that many of them are disillusioned.
One might be upset at hearing about corrupt practices or "it's not what you know it's who you know" politics, because that's all we hear about in the news and on TV shows (because that's the salacious part of politics).
One might be upset at having no effective voice because of the two-party system and the sheer size of the electorate in each state: If I'm a libertarian or a national socialist or a communist, I have no real representation in government.
One might be disillusioned that the above points don't actually reflect how democracy works, and that the real hard work of legislation comes from things the public doesn't get to see: Cultivating relationships; the give and take of favors and votes; saying yes to something that's slightly against your principles so that you can get a reciprocal yes for something important to you later on.
Disillusionment is too big a thing to make me stop voting. The best way to change the system is to use it, and that means I need to vote, despite each of the above points. The next best way to change the system is to bring about revolution that replaces it, and that is a singularity that nobody can see beyond, and that recent history has not shown to work.
Meh, why is turnout something one should encourage? Put another way, why should the voices of those who could barely be bothered to show up be amplified over those of those who really care? I don't want 100% turnout; I do want the people who don't care to stay home. I'd also like to only allow people who can pass the citizenship test given to prospective naturalised citizens to be able to vote, but that's an entirely…
Meh, why is turnout something one should encourage? Put another way, why should the voices of those who could barely be bothered to show up be amplified over those of those who really care? I don't want 100% turnout; I do want the people who don't care to stay home. I'd also like to only allow people who can pass the citizenship test given to prospective naturalised citizens to be able to vote, but that's an entirely…
[deleted]
And I object to 'rational reasons' and 'do care' in the same sentence. Either they mean to vote or they don't. Pretending to care and making excuses equals 'don't care'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think most people do care, but that many of them are disillusioned.
"Disillusioned" is a catch-all for so many different things though. One might be upset at hearing about corrupt practices or "it's not what you know it's who you know" politics, because that's all we hear about in the news and on TV shows (because that's the salacious part of politics). One might be upset at having no effective voice because of the two-party system and the sheer size of the electorate in each state:…