Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely, honestly, I would turn out to vote for Bernie Sanders, but that is seeming to be less likely as time progresses. So, I won't be voting at all, since I could care less if either Clinton or Trump get elected. Clinton gets elected and the status quo doesn't change very much, Trump gets elected, and maybe---just maybe some people will begin to sit up and take action.
In the case of Trump getting elected, you're assuming that we'd still have anything that resembles a democracy four years later and that the people who'd supposedly be ready to take action wouldn't be thrown in jail or disappeared or suppressed via collective violence. Resigning oneself to naked fascism with the idea that it could somehow lead to more progress down the line is quite the gamble. Perhaps it could work…
Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout
381–390 of 458 posts
Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout
#382I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…
There was a time in American history where these were used, and they were used to disenfranchise people of color.
Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abstaining is a form of voting, regardless of whether you consider it "some BS idea."
A representative present for a roll call and explicitly abstaining is a form of voting. A citizen staying home on election day is indistinguishable from apathy.
Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout
#384I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…
People are alarmingly ignorant of not only candidate's political positions but also lack the interest (and in some cases the ability) to analyze what they are being told and promised in order to reach sensible independent conclusions they might be able to use in driving a voting decision.
We don't need more ignorant voters. In fact, we might do far better with fewer well-educated and engaged voters.
No, I don't mean we should require a Masters degree. What I do mean is that there ought to be a higher threshold to being able to vote than simply being alive and wanting to do so.
How would this work?
Want to vote on a measure for, say, a new transportation law? No problem, here's a packet, study it, take a test, pass the test and you can vote.
Want to vote on a new law affecting patents? No problem. Packet. Study. Test. Pass. Vote.
Want to vote for President? It will require some work. Lot's of issues to consider. It might take a year of studying the issues just to be able to pass the tests.
If we had a system where every voter really and truly understood the issues and could tell bullshit from reality we would not have the equivalent of "political trailer trash" running for office. No Clinton, no Bernie and definitely no Trump.
The three choices in front of us today are truly vomit inducing, each at their own level. It is a sad statement that we finally got here, the same spot nearly every South American country has navigated over the years.
Yes, that spot where Populism grabs the masses and does not relent until the destruction is obvious enough even to those not paying attention. I sure hope we don't go there. The sad truth is that all three of our candidates are Populist manipulators who are not at all good for this country.
...and our voters are too stupid to see through it.
...which is EXACTLY what has destroyed most of South America over decades of Populist manipulation.
Gloria Alvarez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8cE54uKBo
Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the worst lies perpetuated by the media is that the presidential election is the only one that really matters. There are so many elections that have a direct impact on your life that you can participate in – state, city, and county election. These are not generally very partisan. Sadly, local elections often don't have enough options simply because there aren't enough politicians standing for election.
We need a TV channel/website that simply states the facts of the positions each politician holds, where they are from, when their elections are coming up and their voting record based on their supposed stance. There are SO many things that we can do. We invest supposedly in physical and technical infra, but never in political.... THAT is the revolution I want to see.
Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop voting for someone and start voting against someone. Pick the least worst candidate and give them your vote.
It's sort of the train switch moral question. If you hate them both but hate one slight more, voting for the lesser hated one makes you morally responsible for the shit they cause in some peoples' view (as opposed to being a bystander).
No it isn't.
Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from Australia where we have mandatory voting, you're missing one of the biggest benefits. When people are forced to vote, the parties HAVE to accommodate that not only their 'die hard fans' are going to get them through the election. It leads to far less extremist views from the parties, or if they are extremist, they often temper some of the points later to ensure they don't have a huge backlash during the e…
how do they make it mandatory? Is there a voting police?
Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read this article and I still don't see the "why". It says "because there are big problems people want changed", this doesn't answer why you want to increase voter turnout. For example, in America, the will of the people only influences change when it coincidentally is aligned with special interest will. Every other time special interests are more influential than the voting public. This would undermine a theory th…
The successes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would seem to contradict your thesis.
Re: Vote.org is a non-profit that wants to get the U.S. to 100% voter turnout
#389I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party t…
When I was younger, I got deeply involved in local, county, and state politics. I even ran for office once, was treasurer for a congressional campaign, and was on county and state executive committees. I met governors, senators, presidential candidates, and one sitting president. I had a well-informed opinion on any issue you can name, and changed positions on many of them as I got older. What did I learn? When I got…
A million times YES.
I wish people understood this. Then voting would not be pointless. We need to figure out a way to place better people in office and that requires smart voters.
This is also where the more Libertarian ideology could help. How? By stripping government of all but the basic functions they are supposed to perform. Over time our government has grabbed more and more power, money and influence. If we pulled them back to basics and reduced the reach they can have into our individual and business lives things would get better.