|
Arri posted:Perhaps more people would vote for Democrats if they actually started representing even a modicum of the left. Strange how Democrats seem to represent even a modicum of the left every four years and then forget every other four years!
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Also, mandatory voting just means retards who couldn't care less about issues vote. Why a totally uninformed vote is better than no vote is beyond me. Nope. It is nearly a mathematical impossibility your vote will matter, either from the point of deciding an election or tipping some electorate over into being taken more seriously. Voting costs you time: you've got to take some amount of time out of your day to actually go to the booth. As a result of those two things, there are a vast number of people who care about the issues but do not vote because they have correctly determined the benefit is not worth the cost. The cost is also much higher to certain people - people who work and cannot get time off, or who don't have a convenient polling location. There's no reason to believe you, as a voter, are any more informed than a non-voter. You might care more, but that doesn't necessarily means you're more informed - we all know those people who have very strong opinions about subjects they know less than nothing about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Arri posted:Perhaps more people would vote for Democrats if they actually started representing even a modicum of the left. The number of people who don't vote because the Democrats are insufficiently leftist is minuscule compared to the number of nonvoters. Loud, of course, but minuscule. People in this forum think that's not true, but this forum is not anything close to an accurate sample of the populace.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's no reason to believe you, as a voter, are any more informed than a non-voter. You might care more, but that doesn't necessarily means you're more informed - we all know those people who have very strong opinions about subjects they know less than nothing about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't get what this is trying to solve. It looks to me like "People are apathetic about policy, therefore put them in jail unless they randomly back a particular outcome or turn in a blank ballot". What are we accomplishing by jailing people who don't want to vote? I'm fully in favor of making it easier to vote, so that people who want to vote have the opportunity, but if someone doesn't want to vote, I don't see the benefit of forcing them to vote and at best adding statistical noise to outcome. A major reason people don't vote (especially in midterms) is that they don't know there's an election going on. One of the best ways of voter suppression is lack of information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:Yeah voter fraud. Some say it doesn't happen, but I'm not totally convinced: That study has been criticized for serious methodological flaws, including considerable sample population bias, poor survey rigor, clearly detectable problems in the accuracy of survey responses, handwavey assumptions from the scientists not backed up by fact, and more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:I agree with this, but it doesn't fill in the "and therefore it's important that people who correctly determine there's no point in voting be forced to vote" bit. Voting is essentially a public good: it's important for everyone to vote but it's simply in everyone's interest for everyone but them to vote. It would be fine if the voting populace mirrored the larger populace, but it doesn't. That doesn't mean that "forcing" them is the correct approach, but that's a question of what the best way to do things is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A major reason people don't vote (especially in midterms) is that they don't know there's an election going on. edit: evilweasel posted:Voting is essentially a public good: it's important for everyone to vote but it's simply in everyone's interest for everyone but them to vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:Again, I agree with this, but mandatory voting does not solve this problem! This looks like accelerationism to me, "If we mandate voting, then all our terrible voting laws will have to be made not-terrible lest we jail half the population". The real fix is to just make our voting laws not-terrible. I don't necessarily think that people should be forced to vote but I think the number of people not voting would be considerably smaller (even for Presidential elections) if methods of voter suppression were eliminated and/or more encouragement to vote occurred.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It is nearly a mathematical impossibility your vote will matter, either from the point of deciding an election or tipping some electorate over into being taken more seriously. Voting costs you time: you've got to take some amount of time out of your day to actually go to the booth. If this is true - then nothing is lost by that person not voting. Why force them to vote? If it's not true (because a blizzard is made up of snowflakes etc) - then this demographic cannot even bother to spend an hour every few years to get themselves representation. I don't have much sympathy. If it takes longer than an hour to vote - then we have found the real problem IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
If you want to see what mandatory voting gets you, look at Australia's treatment of refugees. Both major parties are in a competition to see who can be the most horrible and therefore win the "don't care about politics but I hate them reffos" vote.
My Lil Parachute fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:If you want to see what mandatory voting gets you, look at Australia's treatment of refugees. Both major parties are in a competition to see who can be the most horrible and therefore win the "don't care about politics but I hate them reffos" vote. Maybe a country that's 85% white is just really racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
I know American D&D posters are hypersensitive to racial issues, but mandatory voting will get every hick voting on things like "should we round up all the illegals and ship em back to Mexico?".
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I know American D&D posters are hypersensitive to racial issues, but mandatory voting will get every hick voting on things like "should we round up all the illegals and ship em back to Mexico?". While I am sympathetic to the notion that expanding voting won't necessarily be positive, the quoted really isn't clear due to America's large minority population.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I know American D&D posters are hypersensitive to racial issues, but mandatory voting will get every hick voting on things like "should we round up all the illegals and ship em back to Mexico?". We know, from the demographics of non-voters and from polls of voters vs non-voters, that increasing turnout (all things being equal) would reduce the impact of those voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Minorities are already underrepresented as voters, so increasing turnout would likely increase their overall impact rather than diminish it. I would think maybe a proportional representation scheme could impact turnout as you vote less for individual and more for party, and it encourages more parties to participate if it is parliamentary style. Maybe then also vote party for specific posts or make more posts appointed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Minorities are already underrepresented as voters, so increasing turnout would likely increase their overall impact rather than diminish it. Some minorities are (black people are actually about even proportionally). The bigger issue is the youth vote, which is why a lot of the others are not so high (Hispanics and Asians are younger on average).
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
tsa posted:Honest question: if voting expansion instead heavily benefited the republicans how do you think posters' opinions here on the topic would change? It's interesting no one is really addressing why greater voter turnout is good beyond that it benefits the party most posters here support. I support voting expansion, but I also realize it's very easy to do so when it helps your party and hurts the other. It certainly makes it easier for me to support, but I also think it's very clearly the right thing to do, along with absentee voting. Not allowing it disenfranchises a lot of voters who can't necessarily make it on the day of. Give people a two week window, campaigns these days go on long enough that it's not like anyone hasn't made up their minds already. To put it in reverse, I think if voter fraud were actually a serious problem in this country, I would be willing to support voter ID laws. Xandu fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I know American D&D posters are hypersensitive to racial issues, but mandatory voting will get every hick voting on things like "should we round up all the illegals and ship em back to Mexico?". So what? I don't think "don't let people I think are stupid vote" is a sustainable or smart public policy. In any case, the hicks already go out and vote in droves, and voter fraud laws are often written to encourage them while blocking minorities and young people. One common criticism of voter ID laws, for example, is that gun licenses are usually sufficient ID to vote but student IDs aren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't get what this is trying to solve. It looks to me like "People are apathetic about policy, therefore put them in jail unless they randomly back a particular outcome or turn in a blank ballot". What are we accomplishing by jailing people who don't want to vote? I'm fully in favor of making it easier to vote, so that people who want to vote have the opportunity, but if someone doesn't want to vote, I don't see the benefit of forcing them to vote and at best adding statistical noise to outcome. Everyone should vote, I don't always agree with all the issues yes/no or all the candidates and you can choose not to vote on the things you don't want to vote on. Anyways Australia has compulsory voting and their turn out is like 93%. Also no one said anything about throwing anyone in jail. In Australia if you don't vote its like a $20 fine. From a democracy perspective isn't more people voting better? Changing the voting day to a weekend or week and then making it compulsory would at least inspire some people to write a big old gently caress YOU on the ballot before sending it back. I think this mainly solves the problem of the youth vote because 18-24 year olds really like to spend their $20 on beer and pot so would probably start voting which would really make USA politics at least slightly more interesting than what it is right now. I think there are other changes that could make voting more interesting and then make more people get involved, including but not limited to nationwide advisory votes and things like that so we can see from a non-poll voting perspective on how people feel about specific issues instead of having the extent of our national participation being voting for these abstracted representatives that maybe represent us on one or two issues but on a whole mainly represent lobbyists and such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Is there any legitimate argument for removing early voting? Early voting may lower turnout: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/23/study-early-voting-associated-with-lower-turnout/ Reason posted:Everyone should vote, I don't always agree with all the issues yes/no or all the candidates and you can choose not to vote on the things you don't want to vote on. Exactly, up to including not voting on anything ie. not voting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Reason posted:Everyone should vote, I don't always agree with all the issues yes/no or all the candidates and you can choose not to vote on the things you don't want to vote on. Anyways Australia has compulsory voting and their turn out is like 93%. Also no one said anything about throwing anyone in jail. In Australia if you don't vote its like a $20 fine. quote:From a democracy perspective isn't more people voting better? quote:I think this mainly solves the problem of the youth vote because 18-24 year olds really like to spend their $20 on beer and pot so would probably start voting which would really make USA politics at least slightly more interesting than what it is right now. edit: To be clear, I'm in favor of increasing voting for those who want to vote, just not by fining those least able to pay fines. twodot fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't know, is it? Can you tell me a specific aspect of society that is improved if 2 million people vote versus 1 million? Help me out, state a problem that currently exists and then explain why fining people $20 for not voting solves that problem. Apparently, the "wrong" million are voting. Getting the sort of person who refuses to vote unless you threaten them with a $20 fine to show up is better for the country, see. IMO voting should be encouraged, easy, and optional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't necessarily think that people should be forced to vote but I think the number of people not voting would be considerably smaller (even for Presidential elections) if methods of voter suppression were eliminated and/or more encouragement to vote occurred. I think you're overestimating the desire of the public to vote. Suppression plays some role, but I think it's small. I'm blown away by how many people I know who just don't care about elections. There is a huge amount of apathy in the country. Now some might be no confidence in government, but I think a lot of people just don't care what happens. Speaking of increased participation, won't we hit a point where people vote online in some fashion? I just can't imagine in 30 years we'll all be going into polling stations and filling out ballots by hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I think you're overestimating the desire of the public to vote. Suppression plays some role, but I think it's small. I'm blown away by how many people I know who just don't care about elections. There is a huge amount of apathy in the country. Now some might be no confidence in government, but I think a lot of people just don't care what happens. Again, like I said earlier, one of the biggest forms of voter suppression is not releasing information. In Texas it's very very difficult to find information about candidates, and just in general good luck finding out information about your local candidates (the ones that aren't even party affiliated). quote:Speaking of increased participation, won't we hit a point where people vote online in some fashion? I just can't imagine in 30 years we'll all be going into polling stations and filling out ballots by hand. It's possible, and it has the benefit of preventing people from "voting twice". On the other hand, if there still exists a large number of people who don't vote and you know their voting information (probably name + SS number) to access the site then you can fraudulently cast tons of votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't know, is it? Can you tell me a specific aspect of society that is improved if 2 million people vote versus 1 million? Help me out, state a problem that currently exists and then explain why fining people $20 for not voting solves that problem. I think that right now in the US its very easy to feel like your vote doesn't count especially if you're not into mainstream republican or democratic ideals, this is because the people who do vote are surprise, the people who think republicans or democrats are actually going to get things done. A big majority of the people who don't vote probably do so because they feel like they aren't represented by current candidates and/or issues on the ballot and bringing more people into that process would open up more opportunities for other voices to be heard. Its not about right or wrong people voting, by saying either that the right or wrong people are voting right now is undermining the democratic process, but if you include everyone then its everyone, right or wrong. I see people saying poo poo like, oh more people should vote, but I'm not willing to support any change to make that a reality and that feels like a copout. If you think more people should vote than you should be willing to change something to encourage those people to vote. Another thing that might make sense is that if you don't vote, your vote is cast as a default the exact same way as one of the representatives of your district. twodot posted:This could easily cause youth voting to increase, but the question is what benefit occurs if youth voting increases? The point or benefit is that the more that get involved the more sincere and representative of the country our outcomes could be. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Reason posted:I think that right now in the US its very easy to feel like your vote doesn't count especially if you're not into mainstream republican or democratic ideals, this is because the people who do vote are surprise, the people who think republicans or democrats are actually going to get things done. A big majority of the people who don't vote probably do so because they feel like they aren't represented by current candidates and/or issues on the ballot and bringing more people into that process would open up more opportunities for other voices to be heard. quote:The point or benefit is that the more that get involved the more sincere and representative of the country our outcomes could be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't see why this is the case. The people we are talking about are actively choosing not to vote. Doesn't them not voting constitute a more sincere representation of our country than forcing them to, perhaps, arbitrarily pick a name? They'd be free to not fill out their ballot when they vote. They'd just have to affirmatively abstain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Mandatory voting should also have a "none of the above" option on the ballot for every race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
tsa posted:Early voting may lower turnout: Interesting. I'd want to look more at the research, but even if true, we should still give people as many options to vote as possible. If people are still choosing not to vote, that's a different issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:They'd be free to not fill out their ballot when they vote. They'd just have to affirmatively abstain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right so at best they don't fill out their ballot and nothing is changed, and at worst they see a name they like and they add noise to a system that was already correctly representing their preference (that they had none) or they still refuse to vote and we fine/jail people who aren't causing any harm. Tell me concretely what problem this is meant to solve. Your assumption that non-voters do not have a preference is the basis of your argument and it is incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Your assumption that non-voters do not have a preference is the basis of your argument and it is incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is this you telling me that you don't have an actual problem to solve? I don't understand why people who support mandatory voting can't concretely state even a single problem that mandatory voting solves. I am telling you that every single thing you said in the post I quoted was premised on the assumption that non-voters do not have a preference. That assumption is incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, like I said earlier, one of the biggest forms of voter suppression is not releasing information. In Texas it's very very difficult to find information about candidates, and just in general good luck finding out information about your local candidates (the ones that aren't even party affiliated). I just don't buy that people didn't realize there was an election. It's extensively covered in the news for the months leading up to it. There are millions of ads being run on TV and radio. Signs are all over yards in town. Mailers are sent out, political calls made, people canvassing neighborhoods. And you'd be hard pressed to avoid any mention of it on social media. If we're talking about cities that hold elections off cycle and separate from state/national elections, I'd agree. But you'd have to live a sheltered life to not realize that even a midterm election was taking place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I just don't buy that people didn't realize there was an election. It's extensively covered in the news for the months leading up to it. There are millions of ads being run on TV and radio. Signs are all over yards in town. Mailers are sent out, political calls made, people canvassing neighborhoods. And you'd be hard pressed to avoid any mention of it on social media. There must be some reason why people don't vote in midterms but magically do every presidential election. It's not "Democrats don't appeal to the left" because it wouldn't follow the consistent pattern. And honestly I can tell you that outside of contentious elections you can go pretty far without hearing about the elections. Even if you hear about them there's no guarantee you actually know who's standing for what.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Presidential elections are an event in this country. Something we build up to for years. The person who wins that election will be part of our lives in a way that other offices aren't. The bigger the office, the more interest there will be. I don't think that's magical, I just think people care more about who the President is than who their House Representative is. I'd also add that races aren't competitive for a lot of people thanks to all the gerrymandering. Where I live, the Federal House race, along with the State Senate and House races are foregone conclusions. So unless there is a close Gubernatorial race on the ballot or someone has a strong opinion on County positions (which often go unopposed), there isn't a ton of incentive to vote. I understand why someone doesn't want to kill an hour to vote in an election that officials have setup to not be competitive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So what? I don't think "don't let people I think are stupid vote" is a sustainable or smart public policy. In any case, the hicks already go out and vote in droves, and voter fraud laws are often written to encourage them while blocking minorities and young people. One common criticism of voter ID laws, for example, is that gun licenses are usually sufficient ID to vote but student IDs aren't. There is actually a pretty good reason for excluding college ID. Student ID's aren't sufficient ID because there are plenty of foreign nationals who also attend American Universities. So a a student ID card doesn't mean someone is actually a citizen. Getting a permit to sell guns and run a gun range actually requires a shitton of paperwork. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
That's not a good reason unless merely having an ID entitles you to vote which I doubt is the case. There still has to be some accounting on the end at each polling place, i.e. looking you up in the book and checking you off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
spoon0042 posted:That's not a good reason unless merely having an ID entitles you to vote which I doubt is the case. There still has to be some accounting on the end at each polling place, i.e. looking you up in the book and checking you off. That's why they require something with your address, so they can confirm it's Jim Smith of 30th street and not Jim Smith of 105th street. Even back in the day a reasonable form of ID was a power bill with your name and address on it. Of course you could do a partnership with the university so their ID can translate to something the pollster has but that's such a big  I'm not surprised that it hasn't been suggested (even voter suppression reasons aside).
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 14:38
|
|