The lower the turnout, the more the eventual winners are inclined to ignore what the electorate thinks.
That's the best reasoning I've ever seen for not voting at all. Earlier I was going to post that an informed person deciding not to vote is better than an apathetic/ignorant person not voting, but you just changed my mind.
It's even more vital in our age group. Better yet, write the parties (probably better than the actual candidate) you didn't vote for and let them know why, if you might be inclined to vote for that party in the future.
The lower the turnout, the more the eventual winners are inclined to ignore what the electorate thinks.
Is that bad? Why should elected representatives give a shit about the wishes of the people who don't vote?
Because as a side-effect, they also ignore the wishes of the people who do. The non-voters ruin it for everyone else.
Right again. There's a reason that young people are virtually ignored by politicians and old people are pandered to. It's because, as a collective, old people vote and young people don't.
Right again. There's a reason that young people are virtually ignored by politicians and old people are pandered to. It's because, as a collective, old people vote and young people don't.
And I'm trying to fix that- I'm 22 and the only vote I've missed since achieving voting age is a local school board primary I didn't even know existed until after it was over. (Out of 22,000 city residents, there were 92 voters.)
(Edited to lumberjack a quote tree.)
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
The lower the turnout, the more the eventual winners are inclined to ignore what the electorate thinks.
Is that bad? Why should elected representatives give a shit about the wishes of the people who don't vote?
Because as a side-effect, they also ignore the wishes of the people who do. The non-voters ruin it for everyone else.
Right again. There's a reason that young people are virtually ignored by politicians and old people are pandered to. It's because, as a collective, old people vote and young people don't.
Uh, no, the "right again" doesn't really follow, as your position (as you just worded it) agrees with mine. The reason old people get pandered to is because they vote in droves. Hence, they don't get ignored. The reason young people get the shaft is because they don't vote. Why should elected representatives give a shit about young people, who never vote for them?
The lower the turnout, the more the eventual winners are inclined to ignore what the electorate thinks.
Is that bad? Why should elected representatives give a shit about the wishes of the people who don't vote?
Because as a side-effect, they also ignore the wishes of the people who do. The non-voters ruin it for everyone else.
Right again. There's a reason that young people are virtually ignored by politicians and old people are pandered to. It's because, as a collective, old people vote and young people don't.
Uh, no, the "right again" doesn't really follow, as your position (as you just worded it) agrees with mine. The reason old people get pandered to is because they vote in droves. Hence, they don't get ignored. The reason young people get the shaft is because they don't vote. Why should elected representatives give a shit about young people, who never vote for them?
Why should young people vote, when politicians don't campaign to them?
It's a zero sum problem, or a catch 22 depending on how you look at it. Young people don't vote so they aren't an important campaign demographic and since they aren't being campaigned (read: advertised) to, they don't vote.
Because as a side-effect, they also ignore the wishes of the people who do. The non-voters ruin it for everyone else.
Right again. There's a reason that young people are virtually ignored by politicians and old people are pandered to. It's because, as a collective, old people vote and young people don't.
Uh, no, the "right again" doesn't really follow, as your position (as you just worded it) agrees with mine. The reason old people get pandered to is because they vote in droves. Hence, they don't get ignored. The reason young people get the shaft is because they don't vote. Why should elected representatives give a shit about young people, who never vote for them?
The "right again" was for the now-limed part. The large portion of non-voting young people mean that my vote (and my voice), as a young person, means very little. Which reinforces the cycle. i.e., they don't listen to me so why should I bother?
Unfortunately, it needs to be consistant voting, not just single elections. Which is why, despite a significant increase in the youth vote in '04 (tying '92 for highest youth turnout since '72), politicians still seem to be ignoring the youth vote.
There are a few realistic Democratic potential nominees I'd vote for, but they're all long-shots. I'd probably only vote for Hillary if her opponent is someone who scares the hell out of me. The last thing we need is more nanny-state bullshit right now. Big Mother is as bad as Big Brother.
Tiemler on
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
Nader went crazy and Penn... Penn... Penn, huh? I'd actually have to think about him for a little bit.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Hillary represents the politician desperate to remain in office, who is willing to sell every last one of her viewpoints to the person or business who gives her the most campaign money.
I've not really found Hillary to have sold off her "viewpoints". She's a moderate, pragmatic Democrat, like her husband. And, by and large, people were fairly happy with Bill Clinton's political agenda and policies. I mean - I'm definitely more aligned with some of the more ideological liberals on the billet at this point than with Hillary, but I don't really think it's fair to characterize her as a sellout.
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
I understand why you and Shinto might wave your hands dismissively and say "well, you're stuck with the choice," but when you introduce MORAL duty into the equation, as Shinto has seen fit to do, then I very much differ on what my moral duty is as a citizen. I think it is a citizen's moral duty NOT to vote for a Presidential candidate that he or she believes will do a bad job. I think that is abusive and lazy participation in our voting system. I think a much more morally responsible action would be to vote for a third-party candidate that you DO think will do a good job, or to simply not vote.
"Would you like brussel sprouts, or would you like turnips?"
"I'd like unicorns!"
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
As for generalizations, I can show you plenty of politicians, CURRENTLY IN OFFICE, that fit my descriptions, and a couple more I left out. The whole city needs a heapin' helpin' of electoral Drano. Kerry, for example, would be another guy that will tell anyone what they want to hear if it'll get him elected. Many, many rank-and-file Congresspeople are of the suck-up-to-get-a-promotion type. Lifetime politicians? Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens, my own personal House rep Tom Petri.
Do you really think that you can assess a president's performance from the dog-and-pony show that is the modern election process? Seriously - modern presidential campaigns are aimed at people who are unwilling to or incapable of paying attention to government.
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Why should young people vote, when politicians don't campaign to them?
It's a zero sum problem, or a catch 22 depending on how you look at it. Young people don't vote so they aren't an important campaign demographic and since they aren't being campaigned (read: advertised) to, they don't vote.
It's a fucked cycle.
A key part of modern campaigns is to drive down turnout among unpredictable groups. Part of the reason that our public perception of government is mired in this concept that all politicians are crooks and that there's no difference between any two candidates or parties is because those drums get beat every fucking campaign season by the trailing party or parties. This especially depresses turnout among the young (who tend to be pretty involved in TV and modern media).
Why should young people vote, when politicians don't campaign to them?
It's a zero sum problem, or a catch 22 depending on how you look at it. Young people don't vote so they aren't an important campaign demographic and since they aren't being campaigned (read: advertised) to, they don't vote.
It's a fucked cycle.
A key part of modern campaigns is to drive down turnout among unpredictable groups. Part of the reason that our public perception of government is mired in this concept that all politicians are crooks and that there's no difference between any two candidates or parties is because those drums get beat every fucking campaign season by the trailing party or parties. This especially depresses turnout among the young (who tend to be pretty involved in TV and modern media).
I think the grassroots blogoshprere maturing might bring more young voters to the table.
What about people whose ideas are not well enough represented to entrust to any one would-be representative?
This is why I feel that the President should be nerfed.
Well, traditionally this is why you have a house, senate, and judiciary.
It's just a fluke that all of them have been controlled by one party the last six years.
Government works best when it works in opposition. Because everything has to be based on compromise.
Also, you need to differentiate the powers the president actually has from the ones this president has simply laid claim to.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Voting is not expressing yourself in the sense of wearing certain clothes or changing the color of you hair damn it.
Voting is expressing yourself in the sense of trying to make the country go a certain way. If you vote in such a way that it has no real effect you haven't expressed very much at all.
Though if Guliani wins, theres a strong possibility of the Democratic party collapsing, so...maybe not.
Guiliani just looks very, very beatable to me. He's ridden 9/11 for 5 1/2 years, but he hasn't HAD to ride anything else. People are going to want to know more about him than that in a general, and that's where it all goes to hell.
three wives, very public affair, moved in with a gay couple after his last divorce, his shady ass police commissioner. The list gets pretty long.
Guliani - tons of problems.
McCain - really really old. republicans also dont like him, so lets not pretend he'll win the nomination.
Romney - Mormon. His flip-flops make Kerry look good.
Brownback - probably too crazy Christian
Huckabee - I'm actually fairly impressed with how this guy comes off. Let's hope he doesn't get nominated.
I'm really not impressed with the electability of the republican field.
I'll bet anyone ten dollars Newt Gingrich takes the Republican nomination.
I'll take that; I'm reasonably confident that Thompson will get it. He doesn't have Gingrich's baggage and he's quite charismatic.
Yeah... I don't think anyone who has seen the movie Feds is going to be able to take Thompson seriously.
In fact, no one will be able to take him seriously. Hell, I don't buy him as Lead District Attorney, there's no way I'd buy him as President.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Though if Guliani wins, theres a strong possibility of the Democratic party collapsing, so...maybe not.
Guiliani just looks very, very beatable to me. He's ridden 9/11 for 5 1/2 years, but he hasn't HAD to ride anything else. People are going to want to know more about him than that in a general, and that's where it all goes to hell.
three wives, very public affair, moved in with a gay couple after his last divorce, his shady ass police commissioner. The list gets pretty long.
Guliani - tons of problems.
McCain - really really old. republicans also dont like him, so lets not pretend he'll win the nomination.
Romney - Mormon. His flip-flops make Kerry look good.
Brownback - probably too crazy Christian
Huckabee - I'm actually fairly impressed with how this guy comes off. Let's hope he doesn't get nominated.
I'm really not impressed with the electability of the republican field.
I'll bet anyone ten dollars Newt Gingrich takes the Republican nomination.
I'll take that; I'm reasonably confident that Thompson will get it. He doesn't have Gingrich's baggage and he's quite charismatic.
Come September the Republicans who announced early will have knocked each other out of the race by spending all their money beating the shit out of each other. And he's completely clean - the guy was a former US federal attorney who was on the Watergate Committee and successfully prosecuted a corrupt Tennessee governor. And he'll pick up the south without having to spend a dime against Gingrich.
If he can get any money he'll sweep the primaries easily and would most likely win a general election against any of the Democrats big front-runners.
Come September the Republicans who announced early will have knocked each other out of the race by spending all their money beating the shit out of each other. And he's completely clean - the guy was a former US federal attorney who was on the Watergate Committee and successfully prosecuted a corrupt Tennessee governor. And he'll pick up the south without having to spend a dime against Gingrich.
If he can get any money he'll sweep the primaries easily and would most likely win a general election against any of the Democrats big front-runners.
Now, if only he weren't such a self-aggrandizing douche, he'd be great.
Come September the Republicans who announced early will have knocked each other out of the race by spending all their money beating the shit out of each other. And he's completely clean - the guy was a former US federal attorney who was on the Watergate Committee and successfully prosecuted a corrupt Tennessee governor. And he'll pick up the south without having to spend a dime against Gingrich.
If he can get any money he'll sweep the primaries easily and would most likely win a general election against any of the Democrats big front-runners.
Meh.
I'll take that bet.
Then just like with Elkamil's money, I'll be spending it in a way that maximizes your annoyance.
Shinto on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Come September the Republicans who announced early will have knocked each other out of the race by spending all their money beating the shit out of each other. And he's completely clean - the guy was a former US federal attorney who was on the Watergate Committee and successfully prosecuted a corrupt Tennessee governor. And he'll pick up the south without having to spend a dime against Gingrich.
If he can get any money he'll sweep the primaries easily and would most likely win a general election against any of the Democrats big front-runners.
You're talking about Tommy Thomspon or Fred Thompson?
The last thing this country needs is another fucking actor for president.
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Come September the Republicans who announced early will have knocked each other out of the race by spending all their money beating the shit out of each other. And he's completely clean - the guy was a former US federal attorney who was on the Watergate Committee and successfully prosecuted a corrupt Tennessee governor. And he'll pick up the south without having to spend a dime against Gingrich.
If he can get any money he'll sweep the primaries easily and would most likely win a general election against any of the Democrats big front-runners.
Now, if only he weren't such a self-aggrandizing douche, he'd be great.
He's a politician and an actor. Kind of goes with the territory.
Are any of the candidates expressly anti-abortion?
I wouldn't mind gun control laws forcing me to get a job at Wal-Mart or something, if it meant putting an end to that shit.
All republicans will hold a nominal anti-abortion position, but will never pass serious legislation to that effect.
All democrats will hold a tearful pro-choice position, and may or may not pass legislation aimed at reducing the number of abortions through economic policy.
Irond Will on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Not that anyone would actually try to pass legislation ot that effect making it a pointless position
Fundies never have an answer to that one. We had a Republican president who's suppsoedly pro-life and a majority GOP Congress not to mention two new conservative Supreme court justices. how many bills regarding abortion got prorposed or passed? The partial birth abortion ban and that's it. any claim the GOp has ot being the "pro-lige' party is purely symbolic and purely to get votes.
Not that anyone would actually try to pass legislation ot that effect making it a pointless position
Fundies never have an answer to that one. We had a Republican president who's suppsoedly pro-life and a majority GOP Congress not to mention two new conservative Supreme court justices. how many bills regarding abortion got prorposed or passed? The partial birth abortion ban and that's it. any claim the GOp has ot being the "pro-lige' party is purely symbolic and purely to get votes.
Like I said, politicians are generally pussies. I don't support any of them, because I know that in the end they won't support me.
Well... again, maybe it isn't all about YOU. I understand that you are all anti-woman's right to chose for whatever reason, but frankly I find the fact that republicans only pay lip-service to that point of view very comforting.
At least until the wire coat-hanger lobby gets its way.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Well... again, maybe it isn't all about YOU. I understand that you are all anti-woman's right to chose for whatever reason, but frankly I find the fact that republicans only pay lip-service to that point of view very comforting.
At least until the wire coat-hanger lobby gets its way.
I'd tell you what I really thought of this and why if it was on-topic.
But my question concerning the issue has been answered, so it no longer holds relevance.
Right. I was just pointing out something Loren Michael said earlier... you elect officials not just with regards to your personal beliefs, but for the good of the country. I don't think there is any single issue that trumps that.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Not that anyone would actually try to pass legislation ot that effect making it a pointless position
Fundies never have an answer to that one. We had a Republican president who's suppsoedly pro-life and a majority GOP Congress not to mention two new conservative Supreme court justices. how many bills regarding abortion got prorposed or passed? The partial birth abortion ban and that's it. any claim the GOp has ot being the "pro-lige' party is purely symbolic and purely to get votes.
Like I said, politicians are generally pussies. I don't support any of them, because I know that in the end they won't support me.
There a plenty of politicians who aren't "pussies".
Posts
That's the best reasoning I've ever seen for not voting at all. Earlier I was going to post that an informed person deciding not to vote is better than an apathetic/ignorant person not voting, but you just changed my mind.
It's even more vital in our age group. Better yet, write the parties (probably better than the actual candidate) you didn't vote for and let them know why, if you might be inclined to vote for that party in the future.
Right again. There's a reason that young people are virtually ignored by politicians and old people are pandered to. It's because, as a collective, old people vote and young people don't.
(Edited to lumberjack a quote tree.)
Uh, no, the "right again" doesn't really follow, as your position (as you just worded it) agrees with mine. The reason old people get pandered to is because they vote in droves. Hence, they don't get ignored. The reason young people get the shaft is because they don't vote. Why should elected representatives give a shit about young people, who never vote for them?
Why should young people vote, when politicians don't campaign to them?
It's a zero sum problem, or a catch 22 depending on how you look at it. Young people don't vote so they aren't an important campaign demographic and since they aren't being campaigned (read: advertised) to, they don't vote.
It's a fucked cycle.
The "right again" was for the now-limed part. The large portion of non-voting young people mean that my vote (and my voice), as a young person, means very little. Which reinforces the cycle. i.e., they don't listen to me so why should I bother?
Unfortunately, it needs to be consistant voting, not just single elections. Which is why, despite a significant increase in the youth vote in '04 (tying '92 for highest youth turnout since '72), politicians still seem to be ignoring the youth vote.
I'd sure as hell vote for Penn Gillette.
There are a few realistic Democratic potential nominees I'd vote for, but they're all long-shots. I'd probably only vote for Hillary if her opponent is someone who scares the hell out of me. The last thing we need is more nanny-state bullshit right now. Big Mother is as bad as Big Brother.
"Would you like brussel sprouts, or would you like turnips?"
"I'd like unicorns!"
A key part of modern campaigns is to drive down turnout among unpredictable groups. Part of the reason that our public perception of government is mired in this concept that all politicians are crooks and that there's no difference between any two candidates or parties is because those drums get beat every fucking campaign season by the trailing party or parties. This especially depresses turnout among the young (who tend to be pretty involved in TV and modern media).
What about people whose ideas are not well enough represented to entrust to any one would-be representative?
This is why I feel that the President should be nerfed.
I think the grassroots blogoshprere maturing might bring more young voters to the table.
Well, traditionally this is why you have a house, senate, and judiciary.
It's just a fluke that all of them have been controlled by one party the last six years.
Government works best when it works in opposition. Because everything has to be based on compromise.
Also, you need to differentiate the powers the president actually has from the ones this president has simply laid claim to.
Voting is expressing yourself in the sense of trying to make the country go a certain way. If you vote in such a way that it has no real effect you haven't expressed very much at all.
In fact, no one will be able to take him seriously. Hell, I don't buy him as Lead District Attorney, there's no way I'd buy him as President.
No money. No connections.
Bingo. The Presidency needs to be put in its place, is what I mean to say.
If he can get any money he'll sweep the primaries easily and would most likely win a general election against any of the Democrats big front-runners.
Meh.
I'll take that bet.
Then just like with Elkamil's money, I'll be spending it in a way that maximizes your annoyance.
The last thing this country needs is another fucking actor for president.
I wouldn't mind gun control laws forcing me to get a job at Wal-Mart or something, if it meant putting an end to that shit.
I would assume every single one of them is anti-abortion.
Now, pro-life candidates would be all the republican ones except guliani and romney. Although who knows what their official position is now.
All republicans will hold a nominal anti-abortion position, but will never pass serious legislation to that effect.
All democrats will hold a tearful pro-choice position, and may or may not pass legislation aimed at reducing the number of abortions through economic policy.
Romney's definitely pro-life these days.
Fundies never have an answer to that one. We had a Republican president who's suppsoedly pro-life and a majority GOP Congress not to mention two new conservative Supreme court justices. how many bills regarding abortion got prorposed or passed? The partial birth abortion ban and that's it. any claim the GOp has ot being the "pro-lige' party is purely symbolic and purely to get votes.
Like I said, politicians are generally pussies. I don't support any of them, because I know that in the end they won't support me.
At least until the wire coat-hanger lobby gets its way.
I'd tell you what I really thought of this and why if it was on-topic.
But my question concerning the issue has been answered, so it no longer holds relevance.
There a plenty of politicians who aren't "pussies".
They serve single terms then are voted out.