@Sophia: That guy makes some good points. He needs to learn how to cut and edit video to not be obnoxious, but that's just me.
There's also something he didn't touch on and that's ignorance. If someone straight up told me they weren't well-read on the issues and didn't really know what each politician stood for, I'd salute them for not voting.
That's partly why I leave a LOT of blank areas when I've filled out elections in the past. Voting for judge so-and-so in district so-and-so when I know nothing about any of the candidates running, sorry. I don't feel like it's moral for me to weigh in on something so influential when I don't know the facts.
If there was some sort of initiative to get legit information out there so EVERYONE could make some sort of educated vote, then I'd say everyone really should go vote. As it is now, I'm not as passionate about it as I used to be.
Very true, I never understood the argument that you have a duty to vote, but not a duty to be informed.
I'm not American but I am a Brit which kinda makes us an unofficial state anyway seen as we just follow the current president, whomever it is, around like a puppy dog.
What made me laugh about that video was the my 1 vote is the same as the rich mans 1 vote!?!
SERIOUSLY? No one believes that do they? Because I think we are all adult enough to know that politics is an expensive business. People trade and pass around favours and money all the time. If I donate £100,000 or $ or whatever and have dinner with the future 'leader of the free world' and you also get come to that dinner then we are the same until then... Not so much.
Big lobby groups donate to both parties, over here it's all 3... Why? For fun for the love of freedom NO because its an investment in the future. They don't care who wins as long as they get what they want. Anyway rant over sorry if that was a bit much no offence intended.
I'm not American but I am a Brit which kinda makes us an unofficial state anyway seen as we just follow the current president, whomever it is, around like a puppy dog.
What made me laugh about that video was the my 1 vote is the same as the rich mans 1 vote!?!
SERIOUSLY? No one believes that do they? Because I think we are all adult enough to know that politics is an expensive business. People trade and pass around favours and money all the time. If I donate £100,000 or $ or whatever and have dinner with the future 'leader of the free world' and you also get come to that dinner then we are the same until then... Not so much.
Big lobby groups donate to both parties, over here it's all 3... Why? For fun for the love of freedom NO because its an investment in the future. They don't care who wins as long as they get what they want. Anyway rant over sorry if that was a bit much no offence intended.
Which is why, among developed nations, the more decentralized nations have less corruption and are more responsive to their citizens. And why the US becomes more corrupt and unresponsive the more centralized it's administrative structure becomes.
US politics is interesting to be, only in that it typically involves a lot more abuse of office / sex scandals than Canadian politics. You also spend a lot more money on elections. There is a lot more partisan bickering it seems in the United States political system (in Canada in committees at least parties generally work together fairly well considering their ideological differences). Though, I don't deny I'm probably subject to a lot of media bias in saying that.
No, that's an entirely accurate perception--partisanship is at a ridiculous and acrimonious high right now. Elections have always been very expensive and the Citizens United ruling has simply amplified the problem. Couple the US being a non-parliamentary system with first-past-the-post voting and you're simply not going to see a viable third party. That's not to say third party votes are wasted, it's simply that any third party with good ideas gets co-opted by one of the existing parties. Ross Perot may have failed in his bid for the presidency, but his message about the federal budget resonated well enough with voters to force both parties to balance the budget during Clinton's term.
No, that's an entirely accurate perception--partisanship is at a ridiculous and acrimonious high right now. Elections have always been very expensive and the Citizens United ruling has simply amplified the problem. Couple the US being a non-parliamentary system with first-past-the-post voting and you're simply not going to see a viable third party. That's not to say third party votes are wasted, it's simply that any third party with good ideas gets co-opted by one of the existing parties. Ross Perot may have failed in his bid for the presidency, but his message about the federal budget resonated well enough with voters to force both parties to balance the budget during Clinton's term.
The other point you reminded me of is that Canada under a Liberal government in the early 2000's actually banned corporate and union donations. So while we do at times at the provincial government level see union groups and businesses spending money on campaigns at a federal level it is just the major parties. To give you an idea of the difference in how much is spent in the United States by both of the major parties on the election, when compared to Canada's parties, our (currently in power) conservative party in our 2011 election spent around $21 million on their entire election campaign (that was their legal limit). It was the same for the other two major parties, the Liberals and NDP (that was their legal limit though I don't know if they spent that much). Considering that our elections are effectively the equivalent of both your presidential and congressional elections, and that Canada has about 1/10 the US's population, you can see why someone like me from Canada would watch the United States election campaign with interest. With all that ad money flowing around its hard to miss .
"What made me laugh about that video was the my 1 vote is the same as the rich mans 1 vote!?!"
A rich man can influence the vote a lot with his money. But the actual vote? It's just 1 vote. When we're talking total tally, which is all that matters when we announce who is elected, yes a poor person's vote is the exact same as a rich man's.
You can argue about the influence of wealth all you want, because it's there and it's a totally valid point. Just not when it comes to casting your vote. My 1 vote is equally as important as Harry Reid's 1 vote in terms of Nevada's elections.
Mathematically but if in private meetings both candidates promised to help my bill get though because I gave them $100,000 each what do I care who you vote for... In the UK we had a massive scandal that donors and lobbyists were getting private invitations to dinner with the prime minister. The same happens in the US and its fundamentally corrupt.
Mathematically but if in private meetings both candidates promised to help my bill get though because I gave them $100,000 each what do I care who you vote for... In the UK we had a massive scandal that donors and lobbyists were getting private invitations to dinner with the prime minister. The same happens in the US and its fundamentally corrupt.
It isn't quite that straightforward, except for the cases when you find congressman with bundles of cash in a freezer. What actually happens is much more subtle, and insidious. As a lobbyist, I look for a Congressman who seems somewhat amenable to my position already. I give him money, tell him how much I believe in the good he will do, and impress him with my knowledge about the subject I care so deeply about!!! The congressman thinks I am a pretty decent guy, so when it comes time to write a bill, or to fill out the regulatory details of a bill already written, he comes to me. And I do my best, working with his/her staff (almost never the congressman, he/she is too busy) proposing what I think is best for the country, and maybe give myself a little leg up in the industry through regulation that favors me just a teensy bit, cuz hey, I've earned it, and what's a few billion here and there between friends? The congressman, since he/she rarely knows anything beyond what the party line tells them to think about the industry he/she is going to boss around, is glad to have such a decent fellow as myself to make sure the legislation fixes the problems and rights the wrongs. The congressman then moves on blithely to the next piece of legislation with the satisfied feeling that he/she has really done something to help. Of course, there is no need to return to this legislation at a later time to see if it really worked, or to stop and see if unintended consequences are causing worse problems. They have to go to the next emergency!
No one had to do anything that bothered his/her conscience, yet we still get the beautiful confluence of the pretense of knowledge and regulatory capture all rolled into one. This is how laws/budgets/regulations are made in the US. It is the same for R's and D's, only different industries are their "trusted friends".
Mathematically but if in private meetings both candidates promised to help my bill get though because I gave them $100,000 each what do I care who you vote for... In the UK we had a massive scandal that donors and lobbyists were getting private invitations to dinner with the prime minister. The same happens in the US and its fundamentally corrupt.
That has literally nothing to do at all with voting. A lobbyist is able to talk to a politician to get a bill put either on the public vote or to attempt to pass a bill through state legislature, but that has nothing to do with the act of voting.
The rich and powerful and rich and powerful, go figure. They can set the agenda, but it still comes down to the general populace of the United States to vote those people in to public office. Mitt Romney's one vote he gets to cast will count the same as my one vote I get to cast, and he's one of the people running for office.
I think the problem with US voting has less to do with the electoral system (which is a scapegoat in my opinion) but more with the fact that the public has allowed the Republocrat party to rig it to their advantage, successfully creating a false choice between the lesser of two evils in every election. I'm glad to see support for third parties in this thread because that truly is the issue from my perspective: the illusion of choice given to us and the massive piles of cash and legal trickery that's behind that choice. The reason we are told that there are no viable third parties isn't because there aren't any (there are, New York has liek 13 parties on the ballot every election), it's because the monopoly party has shut them out through a series of legal loopholes through which they have to jump just to get on ballots and a lack of media coverage created by this perception. Only one party (Libertarian) is consistently on the ballot in most states but even they can't get on in all 50 due to these silly laws, they aren't in debates (because the Commission is run by Republocrats), and they don't get the financial support.
Perot was able to get his message out because he bought his own airtime with his own money but there's a lack of big money third party donors and candidates with the cajones to take on the establishment. As @CamDawg pointed out, it's not that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, it's that the parties have convinced Americans that it is. In fact, I view a choice between the lesser of two evils as a wasted vote and that the only wasted vote is an unprincipled one. With so many Americans dissatisified with the current state of affairs and the parties in general, the only reason I can fathom that they continue to vote for Republocrats is the view that it's a competition and they want to be on the "winning" side, so they pick the candidate (of only those two who are perceived as playing) which most aligns with their beliefs, even if they hold some beliefs which are completely at odds with their own. This idea that they'll pick someone just because the other guy is worse is a big part of what holds third parties back and it's complete nonsense, but it works great for the Republocrats because they belittle anyone who dares to think outside the box and vote their conscience. They've managed to completely snow the American public (almost as well as Clinton did with his mythical budget surplus).
I thought of three reforms that I see would help put an end to this charade that's voting: end straight ticket voting, remove party identification from the ballots, and strike the word incumbent from appearing anywhere on them. Make people research the candidates before voting or just guess. I figure the guesses will be a wash and the partisans will know who their candidates are. The independents who actually research all the candidates will have more power to decide elections and candidates will be forced to run on messages instead of party platforms. It's the best I could come up with since I don't believe in using the law to force people to spend their money a certain way (or prevent them from doing so, so no limits on campaign finance), or in blanket bans on political activity. I also think the right to not vote is just as essential as the right to vote.
@vortican Soooo... Your solution to this non-problem problem is to actively obfuscate the ballots? Seriously?
See @Jalily's post a page back, re: electoral college and "first past the post."
The current systems almost requires big parties because fringe candidates would not be able to garner the required 270 electoral votes to become president.
I would advocate dumping our current electoral college for a ranked or positional voting system. You have several candidates that you rank in order of preference. It is a way to deal with the fact that so many don't vote for a certain candidate so much as against the other. Also, dumping the public campaign funding and ballot access rules that are designed to exclude anything not D or R.
@vortican Soooo... Your solution to this non-problem problem is to actively obfuscate the ballots? Seriously?
See @Jalily's post a page back, re: electoral college and "first past the post."
The current systems almost requires big parties because fringe candidates would not be able to garner the required 270 electoral votes to become president.
It's really not much more complicated than that.
Political parties came and went in the past, before they were so bold as to create artificial constructs in order to legally encode their legitimacy within the law. They used to be regarded as vehicles for political advancement only, not political animals unto themselves and certainly not rigid ideologies meant to include only those who subscribe to their version of proper political behavior. The size of the party itself is not the issue, but rather the fact that smaller parties are legally barred from participating political functions that would benefit them and do more to inform citizens of their beliefs. Since we can't count on the politicians themselves at the national level to remove this artificial barriers, the only solution I see is to force individuals to do the work instead of making lazy choices. After all, we're not supposed to be voting for parties, we're supposed to be voting for candidates.
Everything in your post supports the continuation of the present monopoly party system and its two wings. We've seen what that has gotten us over the last few decades. A system which actively discourages more political options can not be tolerated.
So youre using a RPG forum to get US Citizens to vote. Nice one..............................o_0
I'm taking a guess here, but I would imagine that the 20-30 demographic who likely dominate these forums are the least likely to vote in the US (based on age). So appealing for people of this age group to vote on here is pretty reasonable to me.
Notice how for the most part I've largely stayed away from the conversation and making my own opinions on what matters and who to vote for known?
I'm not trying to get votes for a specific candidate, I'm trying to get votes in general @lordkim. Whether the 18-30 demographic wants to admit it or not, our votes do shape OUR future more than any other voting bracket will in this election.
I have more I could write, but unfortunately I'm headed to work in about 5 minutes and it would take a lot longer than that to write. I can sum it up as being however, if I've convinced even 1 person to register to vote this November and they actually do it then this topic will have been a success and worth my time. It'll still be one more than there was previously.
Notice how for the most part I've largely stayed away from the conversation and making my own opinions on what matters and who to vote for known?
I'm not trying to get votes for a specific candidate, I'm trying to get votes in general @lordkim. Whether the 18-30 demographic wants to admit it or not, our votes do shape OUR future more than any other voting bracket will in this election.
I have more I could write, but unfortunately I'm headed to work in about 5 minutes and it would take a lot longer than that to write. I can sum it up as being however, if I've convinced even 1 person to register to vote this November and they actually do it then this topic will have been a success and worth my time. It'll still be one more than there was previously.
Honestly, low voting turnout is the least of our problems. And the idea that voting is the most important part of being part of a well functioning society is part of the problem. Not to say that we are like Iraq, but after we removed the Baath dictatorship over there, elections followed pretty quickly. But what we also learned is that mature societal institutions matter far more to a functioning democracy/democratic republic than punching ballots. Someone upthread linked to a Carlin bit that pretty well explains the problem with thinking voting will accomplish a ton.
I would like to encourage people not to vote. The two primary candidates believe in torture, continuing drone strikes, exercising the death penalty without trials, and other vicious human rights violations. I, for one, don't want anything to do with such crimes, and thus refuse to participate. Furthermore, your influence over the outcome is marginal at best, and you can use the time you'd have spent voting doing things that benefit your happiness and that of your community without supporting a leader who believes in human rights violations, for example:
Playing Baldur's Gate Going on a date Volunteering for your local charity Watching a film Buying groceries Playing with your pet
Feel free to contribute your ideas of things to do instead of voting!
Well, you do realize that there are more than 2 candidates for President, right? Most of those don't believe in those things you mentioned. Vote third party.
Could an American in the know explain to me what the point (for a lot of people) is to vote with the current US electoral system?
Like, say you live in Texas and happen to be a democrat. What difference do you make by voting? If I understand it correctly, it seems to me the republicans will win Texas anyway and get all their votes, and even if you and all your friends voted democrat, those votes will be null and void.
So, it would appear that it's only important to vote if you live in any of the swing states where the result is actually uncertain.
I grew up in Washington State. In Washington there hasn't been a Republican governor for about 30 years and it is generally understood that a Democrat will win every statewide election. However, the past two governor's races have been very close, with the Democrat only winning by about 200 votes each time. In this sense it really did matter how everyone voted. If your social network includes more than 200 people, you could have swayed the election one way or the other. Of course, presidential elections are more tricky because of the electoral college and the issue of whether or not the electors will actually vote for who the people say that they should, but the central issue essentially remains the same.
Well, you do realize that there are more than 2 candidates for President, right? Most of those don't believe in those things you mentioned. Vote third party.
Comments
What made me laugh about that video was the my 1 vote is the same as the rich mans 1 vote!?!
SERIOUSLY? No one believes that do they? Because I think we are all adult enough to know that politics is an expensive business. People trade and pass around favours and money all the time. If I donate £100,000 or $ or whatever and have dinner with the future 'leader of the free world' and you also get come to that dinner then we are the same until then... Not so much.
Big lobby groups donate to both parties, over here it's all 3... Why? For fun for the love of freedom NO because its an investment in the future. They don't care who wins as long as they get what they want. Anyway rant over sorry if that was a bit much no offence intended.
And why the US becomes more corrupt and unresponsive the more centralized it's administrative structure becomes.
But yea people vote... if you can.
"What made me laugh about that video was the my 1 vote is the same as the rich mans 1 vote!?!"
A rich man can influence the vote a lot with his money. But the actual vote? It's just 1 vote. When we're talking total tally, which is all that matters when we announce who is elected, yes a poor person's vote is the exact same as a rich man's.
You can argue about the influence of wealth all you want, because it's there and it's a totally valid point. Just not when it comes to casting your vote. My 1 vote is equally as important as Harry Reid's 1 vote in terms of Nevada's elections.
What actually happens is much more subtle, and insidious. As a lobbyist, I look for a Congressman who seems somewhat amenable to my position already. I give him money, tell him how much I believe in the good he will do, and impress him with my knowledge about the subject I care so deeply about!!! The congressman thinks I am a pretty decent guy, so when it comes time to write a bill, or to fill out the regulatory details of a bill already written, he comes to me. And I do my best, working with his/her staff (almost never the congressman, he/she is too busy) proposing what I think is best for the country, and maybe give myself a little leg up in the industry through regulation that favors me just a teensy bit, cuz hey, I've earned it, and what's a few billion here and there between friends? The congressman, since he/she rarely knows anything beyond what the party line tells them to think about the industry he/she is going to boss around, is glad to have such a decent fellow as myself to make sure the legislation fixes the problems and rights the wrongs. The congressman then moves on blithely to the next piece of legislation with the satisfied feeling that he/she has really done something to help. Of course, there is no need to return to this legislation at a later time to see if it really worked, or to stop and see if unintended consequences are causing worse problems. They have to go to the next emergency!
No one had to do anything that bothered his/her conscience, yet we still get the beautiful confluence of the pretense of knowledge and regulatory capture all rolled into one. This is how laws/budgets/regulations are made in the US. It is the same for R's and D's, only different industries are their "trusted friends".
The rich and powerful and rich and powerful, go figure. They can set the agenda, but it still comes down to the general populace of the United States to vote those people in to public office. Mitt Romney's one vote he gets to cast will count the same as my one vote I get to cast, and he's one of the people running for office.
Perot was able to get his message out because he bought his own airtime with his own money but there's a lack of big money third party donors and candidates with the cajones to take on the establishment. As @CamDawg pointed out, it's not that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, it's that the parties have convinced Americans that it is. In fact, I view a choice between the lesser of two evils as a wasted vote and that the only wasted vote is an unprincipled one. With so many Americans dissatisified with the current state of affairs and the parties in general, the only reason I can fathom that they continue to vote for Republocrats is the view that it's a competition and they want to be on the "winning" side, so they pick the candidate (of only those two who are perceived as playing) which most aligns with their beliefs, even if they hold some beliefs which are completely at odds with their own. This idea that they'll pick someone just because the other guy is worse is a big part of what holds third parties back and it's complete nonsense, but it works great for the Republocrats because they belittle anyone who dares to think outside the box and vote their conscience. They've managed to completely snow the American public (almost as well as Clinton did with his mythical budget surplus).
I thought of three reforms that I see would help put an end to this charade that's voting:
end straight ticket voting, remove party identification from the ballots, and strike the word incumbent from appearing anywhere on them. Make people research the candidates before voting or just guess. I figure the guesses will be a wash and the partisans will know who their candidates are. The independents who actually research all the candidates will have more power to decide elections and candidates will be forced to run on messages instead of party platforms. It's the best I could come up with since I don't believe in using the law to force people to spend their money a certain way (or prevent them from doing so, so no limits on campaign finance), or in blanket bans on political activity. I also think the right to not vote is just as essential as the right to vote.
See @Jalily's post a page back, re: electoral college and "first past the post."
The current systems almost requires big parties because fringe candidates would not be able to garner the required 270 electoral votes to become president.
It's really not much more complicated than that.
Also, dumping the public campaign funding and ballot access rules that are designed to exclude anything not D or R.
I also use my facebook and multiple others because I think voting is important.
Everything in your post supports the continuation of the present monopoly party system and its two wings. We've seen what that has gotten us over the last few decades. A system which actively discourages more political options can not be tolerated.
I also use my facebook and multiple others because I think voting is important.
I will rest my case then. Happy election...
I'm not trying to get votes for a specific candidate, I'm trying to get votes in general @lordkim. Whether the 18-30 demographic wants to admit it or not, our votes do shape OUR future more than any other voting bracket will in this election.
I have more I could write, but unfortunately I'm headed to work in about 5 minutes and it would take a lot longer than that to write. I can sum it up as being however, if I've convinced even 1 person to register to vote this November and they actually do it then this topic will have been a success and worth my time. It'll still be one more than there was previously.
But then realised that I'm British...
Someone upthread linked to a Carlin bit that pretty well explains the problem with thinking voting will accomplish a ton.
Playing Baldur's Gate
Going on a date
Volunteering for your local charity
Watching a film
Buying groceries
Playing with your pet
Feel free to contribute your ideas of things to do instead of voting!