Should everybody be allowed to vote?

[arjan]

You start to wonder :headscratch: :
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/834847/are_americans_really_that_stupid/

:confused:

[fustercluck]

I think all who've not trespassed the constitution, who've not been convicted of a felony and who're not receiving a check from the govt. (i.e. wealth transfer payments) should be allowed to vote....

Those who fit the other categories have forfeited their rights IMO.

[arjan]

I can very much agree with that, judging by the clip an small IQ test might be in order also.
6*9+17 should sort most of them out ;)

[oly884]

How people avoid drowning in the toilet every morning amazes me.

Survival of the fittest does not apply to most citizens of the USA anymore. It's too bad too.

[arjan]

How people avoid drowning in the toilet every morning amazes me.



:lol:

[neliconcept]

How people avoid drowning in the toilet every morning amazes me.

Survival of the fittest does not apply to most citizens of the USA anymore. It's too bad too.


now thats freakin funny

[AxleIke]

Everyone ALLOWED to vote?

Most people who ARE allowed to DON'T. I'll let you figure out which is more of a travesty.

Fuster, not to turn this into a deep discussion or anything, but I'd argue that it is actually very difficult for an individual to trespass the constitution at all. The constitution itself simply outlines our basic governmental structure, a democratic republic, and then the amendments, for the most part, give rights to the citizenry, which the government cannot infringe upon.

I fully agree that the government can and has walked all over the constitution on many occasions, but actual voters I don't believe can do very much that is unconstitutional. Except drink during prohibition, that was a case where individuals could break constitutional law.

[Bob98SR5]

like ike, i find it absolutely disgusting that americans (for the most part) are apathetic about voting. even in my worst moments of political cynicism, i have always voted. even a protest vote for ross perot! :D

that said, should everyone be allowed to vote? Yes. the problem is, like the jury system, not everyone is willing to take the time to learn the issues in order to be an informed voter.

i find it hiliarious too that voters have to literally be shuttled to their polling stations now...but only by the party thye are affiliated with. i understand that these vans are primarily for the elderly and handicapped, but when your as# needs to be shuttled to vote for such a great privilege, man, that is pathetic.

my mom said back in the days when there was a military dictator in south korea running the show over there, it was pretty bad in terms of how they treated political dissidents. and dissidents was broadly categorized as any little anti-govt writing or statement.

and while we're on the subject, look at that little fawktard from iran who came to speak at the UN and also at columbia university. i saw him on 60 minutes (one of my rare moments of weakenss watching that left wing propaganda bullc##t show) and for 7 minutes or so, i was reminded why our country is so great in terms of personal freedom and leadership. those columbia idiots would lay themselves in front of a tank to allow this punk ass iranian to speak about the destruction of israel and this country, when in fact, in iran, there are upwards to 5,000 college students who are missing because of political dissent. and i though ivy leaguers were smart :roll:

[AxleIke]

We do have it great here. Silencing people who disagree with you is toeing the line of tyranny.

Many have died for to give us this right, its pretty damn disrespectful to not vote at all.

I, however, cannot stand one issue voters. There is far more to the world than the petty concerns of bored middle class mid-western housewives. People are just too lazy to educate themselves.

The guy from Iran is typical. Sissy college kids thinking that "talking" will fix all the problems. That's all college kids do is talk, hardly any actually take action, and even fewer still actually vote. Fucksticks.

[BruceTS]

I think the only people allowed to vote are the one's that have the same opinions that I have :king: at least that way I know my vote counted :flipoff:, but then again with our courrupt system it doesn't really matter who's in office we are all still screwed.

[AxleIke]

Too true. Congress is for sale, and that never helps the little guy.

[wifesaysimadumbass]

the truly sad part of this whole conversation is that you guys are still thinking that your votes are actually counted and counted correctly ....! with political parties controlling voting districts and electronic voting machines.... you haven't had a real vote in years

[AxleIke]

[conspiracy theory]Aliens Exist!!! They are actually the real ones running the world. We all have mind control implants!!! AHHHHH!!!!![/conspiracy theory]

[BruceTS]

:screwy: who said I even vote any longer :headscratch:

I found out after years of voting none of my votes were counted since I didn't place a vote on every topic.......card got rejected due to a no vote.....

[Texas Jim]

I like, Bob, and Ike, and you too Bruce, (<three stooges)lol, Feel it a huge disgrace to not vote!! Many and I do mean many fellow Americans have left their blood all over battle fields. I will not let their sacrifices be so idly forgotten!! It is too easy to forget those whose backs, blood and personal belief in freedom be passed away as if it didn't manner.

I am here to say that it has never been forgotten by myself!! I will not allow their memories be discarded in vain!!

I vote to honor them!! To do any less is a down right shame!!! If you don't vote you might as well get out of our country!!!

Go and buy an island, when others start telling you what to do with it, don't call the USA for any help!! Your not worth my time.... :flipoff: TJ

[Bob98SR5]

in the last 2 elections, its been so close that we've come to closely inspect (for a lack of a better word) the whole electoral college system. i forgot about those little details since civics and govt class in jr high and high school. i am sure if the democrats won, republicans would be screaming bloody murder about the electoral college system. but i think the good thing in all of this is that the last 2 elections have forced most americans a real world example of why you should vote and why you need to understand things like the electoral college system, and at a local level, the impact of things like redistricting.

imho, the biggest issue on the political table at the local and national level is the whole concept of "one party wins the whole state". This is a huge proposal going on here in CA where the state's electoral college reps vote democratic, but there are enough republican electoral college votes to make a big impact on the nation level:

California electoral-vote plan could sway 2008 presidential race<

By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections — the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes.

The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change — if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters — would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.

That's a number equal to winning Ohio.

The so-called Presidential Election Reform Act is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the California Republican Party and has worked with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did not return phone messages left Monday at his office.

A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman said the governor is not involved with the proposed initiative, and party officials said they have no connection to it.

Democratic consultant Chris Lehane called the plan "an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election."

"If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008," Lehane said in an e-mail.

Nineteen of the state's 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans. President Bush carried 22 districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits.

Only Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes by congressional district.

A draft of the proposed initiative says nixing the winner-take-all system would give presidential candidates "an incentive to campaign in California. ... Many of the geographic areas of the state would be as important to a candidate's chance for victory as many of the smaller states."

"We'll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot," state Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring said.

If it does qualify, Democrats probably would have to spend millions of dollars to defeat it, which could drain money from other races. And there are expected to be additional ballot proposals on abortion and other social issues that could drive up GOP turnout.

The state already moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 in an attempt to increase its clout in national politics.

In that primary, Republicans will award delegates only to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A Democrat can qualify for a delegate by winning at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.

***********

this is a huge proposal, and if passed, would radically change the electoral college count at the end of the presidential race.

bob

[BruceTS]

I like, Bob, and Ike, and you too Bruce, (<three stooges)lol, Feel it a huge disgrace to not vote!! Many and I do mean many fellow Americans have left their blood all over battle fields. I will not let their sacrifices be so idly forgotten!! It is too easy to forget those whose backs, blood and personal belief in freedom be passed away as if it didn't manner.

I am here to say that it has never been forgotten by myself!! I will not allow their memories be discarded in vain!!

I vote to honor them!! To do any less is a down right shame!!! If you don't vote you might as well get out of our country!!!

Go and buy an island, when others start telling you what to do with it, don't call the USA for any help!! Your not worth my time.... :flipoff: TJ


Trying to play the Patriotism card to make one feel guilty about not voting won't work, simply because the two don't go hand and foot. The best part about our system is we are allowed to choose and I chose not to participate in our corrupt government.

Give me the money to buy and island and I'd be more than happy to leave :flipoff:

as for using dead soldiers in an attempt to make one feel guilty....SHAME ON YOU :chair:

you might as well give up offroading, since your using environmentalist type tactics in an attempt to link unrelated issues.

Our voting system is woefully flawed, until a change is made why should I waste my time to just not have my vote counted?

[AxleIke]

While I agree that our voting system is antiquated and needs an overhaul, I'm curious as to what you think it should be changed to.

Basically, what would it take to make you vote?

Just for clarification, I ask this out of curiosity, not antagonistically.

Many I have talked to favor a direct vote count. I think this is fair, but acknowledge that there are some logistical issues to overcome, one big one being the constitution. Less appealing, but more logistically sound, would be to force all states to utilize what Bob mentioned above: basically you get the percentage of electoral college votes that you won in the popular vote.

While I respect your right to choose not to vote, I hope you'll change your mind.

[Bob98SR5]

i htink most americans are so apathetic to voting because they:

a) dont understand the electoral college process (i.e. the 'my vote doesnt count and candidate x actually won the popular vote!)
b) disgusted with the candidates
c) people dont go above and beyond in exploring political issues

there's probably a much longer list, but those are the three that come to mind.

so what i'm saying is that i believe most people are just plain uninformed and candidates take advantage of it. take any issue and candidates will boil it down into simple one liners that people squalk like parrots to their friends, coworkers, etc, when in fact, the one liner is devoid of any serious research or thought. its too bad so many people put such a half ass effort into exploring the issues and making informed voting decisions

bob

[BruceTS]

With the internet it would be quite easy to set-up a system so people can vote from their homes. The problem I encountered with the system using punch cards is if you don't punch out one item, your card got rejected, so none of the other issues or candidates I voted for were even counted. Over the years if I was unsure, I simply skipped that vote and voted on issues I knew about. I don't have the time to properly study all the candidates or propositions on the ballot, so for me it's a waste of time til the system is changed.

[AxleIke]

Hmm...That isn't the case here. You're votes are counted for the things you vote on, and the ones you don't are not. CA must have some funky ass rules.

[fustercluck]

How would we assure that only qualified individuals voted if an online ballot were to be cast?

How would insure that hackers didn't steal an election?

What if the internet goes catastrophically down during or before the election?

Without a physical ballot, how does one challenge results?


If you don't understand the value of the electoral college, perhaps some individual due diligence would suffice rather than scrapping the constitution. (the last comment was not directed toward any particular individual).

I've read exasperated comments about the existence of the electoral college before, but when the reason for it is discovered, usually those opposed become advocates of the process...unless they are otherwise conflicted.

[Bob98SR5]

yeah id have to agree that the internet is not secure enough to assure that there wont be massive fraud. if credit card companies and banks cannot secure their databases from hacking, then i am sure that the govt cannot either. jsut my opinion

[AxleIke]

Fuster, I agree, and disagree.

The electoral college was devised at a time when information took days to weeks to travel between places, where today, it takes only seconds.

The electoral college, while generally sticking to the popular vote, does not have to. This was designed because at the time, it was a real threat that some crazy lunatic could convince back woods country bumpkins that he was a viable candidate, and they'd never find out different. The thought was, the electoral college would erase that problem, because they were informed and educated, they could ensure that some total wacko wasn't elected. (for those who think a whacko can't get popular support, I invite you to look into how Hitler came to power)

While I agree that there is still a VERY real possibility of some whacko getting elected (some might say it's happened on more than one occasion), in today's current election pandemonium, I would argue that it is impossible for any fringe candidates to be elected without SERIOUS media scrutiny, and hundreds of thousands of reports being written about them. Personally, I'd argue that it is impossible for fringe candidates to be elected at all, but that's a different story.

My point is that I believe the electoral college system, as spelled out in the constitution, is antiquated, and needs revision. If 50.1% of my state voted for a democrat, that isn't really fair to the other 49.9. Even though they lose either way, let it em be heard.

On the other hand, while it pains me to say it, since I have a very good friend who may chance across this and is Libertarian, I'm satisfied by the fact that the current system allows no libertarians to ever make it into the counting.

[fustercluck]

My point is that I believe the electoral college system, as spelled out in the constitution, is antiquated, and needs revision. If 50.1% of my state voted for a democrat, that isn't really fair to the other 49.9. Even though they lose either way, let it em be heard.



Wouldn't that be a popular vote?

[fustercluck]

While Ike's description of the electoral college may be attractive, let's understand that the purpose of the college was to level the field so that more populous states did not effectively run dictatorily over less populated states. Part of the bargain for becoming a union over remaining individual and sovreign states was that each state would bear equal sway in federal elections. No state could dominate the rest by virtue of population.

Now some would say that a popular vote should rule the day. How popular was slavery at one point in this nation?

[fustercluck]

How do states determine which candidate(s) get their Electoral College votes?

This is determined by the individual state. Remember the whole purpose of the Electoral College in the first place was to let the states cast their votes for the presidency. Therefore the states must be allowed to cast the votes in any way they see fit to any candidate they wish. In 48 states and Washington, D.C. all electoral votes are cast for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Maine and Nebraska allow their electoral votes to be given to the candidate who wins each of their districts (Maine 2, Nebraska 3). Then the other two votes are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote. This system seems to work remarkably well, and even the anti-Electoral College liberals find very little to argue against this arrangement.

It should be known that the most popular argument against the Electoral College system in this country is against casting all state electoral votes for the candidate who wins by the slightest of margins in the state. Those that consider this a flaw in the system should not blame this on the Electoral College but on the individual states. If you would like for this to be changed in your state, you should contact your state government representatives. Keep in mind that the smaller states tend to favor a "winner-take-all" system because it maximizes the state's voice in the electorate. When a state divides its votes among two or more candidates, its voice is also divided and it loses power.
http://www.maitreg.com/politics/articles/electoralcollege.asp

[Texas Jim]

Trying to play the Patriotism card to make one feel guilty about not voting won't work, simply because the two don't go hand and foot. The best part about our system is we are allowed to choose and I chose not to participate in our corrupt government.

Give me the money to buy and island and I'd be more than happy to leave :flipoff:

as for using dead soldiers in an attempt to make one feel guilty....SHAME ON YOU :chair:

you might as well give up offroading, since your using environmentalist type tactics in an attempt to link unrelated issues.

Our voting system is woefully flawed, until a change is made why should I waste my time to just not have my vote counted?



Just hold on a second here Pilgrim!! This has absolutely nothing to do with using environmentalist tactics!! Do you really think I care if you choose to not vote!! Don't flatter yourself so much!! I am stating the reasons I go and vote!!!

The great thing about this country Bruce, is that those dead soldiers died for your right to not vote also!! What you feel and how you feel about voting is your right!!

I am and did simply state as to why I vote!! You are stating that the system is flawed and you choose to not vote because of that!! Don't accuse me of trying to belittle the reason you choose not to vote!!

I am not your enemy and I am not going to give you the money to buy your own island. You live in a country that allows you to have your own opinion of why you do not vote!! I respect that and would also defend that.

Bruce that is why it is called FREEDOM!!! You have the right to feel the way you do about voting as well as anybody here does. I agree that the system is full of flaws!!! I however feel that if I do not vote that I am just giving up!! I do not choose to do such!!

Do you know right now that Habeas Corpus has failed to pass in congress right now?

Right now if the federal government decides to just go and pick you up, They can hold you indefinitely without charging you with any crime!!! You could die in jail not knowing why you are there in the first place!! No trial, No lawyer, You have no rights!! You are just being held, till someone decides you are no longer a use to them!!! Talk about how Hitler came to power!!

This is just the beginning of a very slippery slope!! This is how the creeps start taking your rights away!! If you do not vote; (which I still say is your right!) You are doing exactally what the fear mongers want you to do!!!

Unless you just want to start a revelution? and if you do PM me! TJ

[fustercluck]

Well they can hab my corpus.....it's old and baggy anyway. :hillbill:

[AxleIke]

But the electoral college does not level the field of populous vs unpopulous states. Each state gets the same electoral votes as they have congressmen (or women). And congressmen are determined by population. California gets tons of attention and carries far more weight than wyoming.

Election math aside, its just not fair to the issues. Lets continue with my wyoming/california example. Candidates will bend over and take it up the ass for california, it has like 29 something electoral votes. They will cater to all sorts of CA issues, from agriculture to computer to port management to power alternatives. I doubt that they stop more than once, if at all, in wyoming. If Wyomings One vote suddenly transfered into 400,000, then they might try a bit harder. Probably not much, but maybe a little.