| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/29/2004 10:25:29 AM · #1 |
The national average of voter turnout in the US is about 46 percent. So less than half the country actually has a hand in choosing a government Γ’by the people and for the people.Γ’
(donΓ’t even talk to me about the electoral college!)
Please make the effort to register and vote (unless of course you aren't in the US, in which case you can vote or not depending on how your country is set up)
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 11:25:04 AM · #2 |
THIS WHOLE THREAD NEEDS TO BE MOVED TO THE RANTS SECTION.
Voting isn't the only step that needs to be taken.
You can have more people voting, but if they don't know what the heck they are voting for it won't do anything to change or help a damn thing.
There is a mess of voters that never listen to the issues and only vote 'their' party ticket like brainless mechanized automatons. It doesn't matter that the party they are voting has morphed into something different over the decades. They vote for the name of the pary only.
I would rather have fewer voters that paid attention to and were passionate about the people and issues they voted for then a mass of politically ignorant fools voting just the name of a party.
Right now, people are voting for people that do not balance their equations. They stand against one thing, but let something else continue, by either not addressing it or ignoring it completely.
There is a big stink about Embryonic Stem Cell Research right now. People are upset because they believe that life begins at conception and embryos deserve the same protections as fully realized human beings do. So, they stand against Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
The only problem is, I haven't seen those same people stand against Invitro Fertilization Clinics. If one believes that embryos are the same as fully realized humans, then those clinics are houses of mass murder since they discard thousands of embryos every single year. The thing is, they won't stand against IVF Clinics.
Any argument that makes it okay for IVF Clinics to exist also makes it perfectly fine for Stem Cell Research to continue. The only way to balance that equation is being for both, or against both. There is no in between.
If you asked any politician against Embrionic Stem Cell Research if they are for IVF Clinics, I am fairly certain they would say, "Those places are great! We need more of them to help Americans that are otherwise unable to have babies, well... Have their babies." If you then pointed out that IVF Clinics discard more Embryos then would be discarded with Stem Cell Research and that they now hold two stances on the rights of Embryos they will run away as fast as they can. It would be political suicide to go against IVF Clinics.
If people honestly thought through their votes and saw the inequity that candidates spew, I am certain our nation would have a better leadership.
We wouldn't have people in power like Orin Hatch who uses one argument to bolster the RIAA Claims for needing some really harsh laws to protect their business model and then uses the opposite side of that argument to bolster support to the pharmaceutical companies in order to keep the elderly from low-cost drugs.
Message edited by author 2004-07-29 11:30:26.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 01:03:12 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
I would rather have fewer voters that paid attention to and were passionate about the people and issues they voted for then a mass of politically ignorant fools voting just the name of a party. |
I too would like to have fewer voters participate ..... as long as they all thought like me, lol. But that goes against the concept of democracy, sort of eliteist. As with dpc, the more voters the better. Voters are only "politically ignorant" because our country has lead them to think that other things are more important than being politically informed. The people who are setting the agenda can make more money that way. |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 01:19:13 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Nelzie:
I would rather have fewer voters that paid attention to and were passionate about the people and issues they voted for then a mass of politically ignorant fools voting just the name of a party. |
I too would like to have fewer voters participate ..... as long as they all thought like me, lol. But that goes against the concept of democracy, sort of eliteist. As with dpc, the more voters the better. Voters are only "politically ignorant" because our country has lead them to think that other things are more important than being politically informed. The people who are setting the agenda can make more money that way. |
It's not all about money. A good part of it is about power. You can have all the money in the world, but if you don't have access to power, it means nothing. It can all be taken away in a second.
I don't care if those that vote think like me or ever agree with anything I believe. That's not important.
The important thing is people to actually know what their candidate stands for and that the candidate holds some integrity within his/her statements and actions. Right now, our nation doesn't have that.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 02:20:26 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by airatic:
(unless of course you aren't in the US, in which case you can vote or not depending on how your country is set up) |
I don't understand this, it is possible I can vote US government? This should be fun, where do I find out how my country is set up?
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 02:23:08 PM · #6 |
As long as people look at what issues they feel strongly about and what issues affect them, then vote for the candadate that supports their issues, we'll be a population run by the majority.
What annoys me is people that vote for a candadate simply because they have a D or R next to their name and don't look at the issues. |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 02:32:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by louddog:
As long as people look at what issues they feel strongly about and what issues affect them, then vote for the candadate that supports their issues, we'll be a population run by the majority.
What annoys me is people that vote for a candadate simply because they have a D or R next to their name and don't look at the issues. |
Exactly my point.
The only other thing that I would ask is that when people are looking at an issue they feel strongly about they look a little deeper then just the emotional surface. They don't have to, but it would sure be nice if they did. If people did that, perhaps they would bring a little more balance to their views, as in if they are against one thing on moral grouds they will be against something very similar on those same moral grounds and won't be afraid to say so. Like the example of Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the IFV Clinics.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 02:40:39 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by louddog:
What annoys me is people that vote for a candadate simply because they have a D or R next to their name and don't look at the issues. |
LoudDog, on principle, is hard to disagree with you -- no reasonable person would. However, it is clearer and clearer, at least to me, that there are serious differences between Dems and Reps -- at least at the national level. Therefore, the D and R that precede the candidates' names are increasingly telling about what they stand for, and what interest they represent.
During the last election we were battered over the head with the adage that there's no difference between the two parties (and the candidates); four years later is easy to imagine that things would've been different on many levels had the Supreme Court not stepped in to stop the recount in Florida.
So, until the national Republican party abandons many of their radical policies and return to a moderate platform, I will continue to vote for candidates with a D before their names.
Message edited by author 2004-07-29 21:09:51.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 03:08:22 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
It's not all about money. A good part of it is about power. You can have all the money in the world, but if you don't have access to power, it means nothing. It can all be taken away in a second.
I don't care if those that vote think like me or ever agree with anything I believe. That's not important.
The important thing is people to actually know what their candidate stands for and that the candidate holds some integrity within his/her statements and actions. Right now, our nation doesn't have that. |
Under the system currently in place in the US, money is power and power is money.
The information necessary to be an informed voter is not really that difficult to find if you look for it. It's just not served up to you on a silver plater because the money/power axis would rather have you thinking about the latest reality and idol shows, the Laci Peterson trial, or how many home runs Barry "Steroids" Bonds is going to hit this season while you are taking tiny pictures with your cell phone from the driver's seat of your gas-guzzling SUV. |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 03:23:24 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
THIS WHOLE THREAD NEEDS TO BE MOVED TO THE RANTS SECTION. |
It didn't until you got a hold of it :) |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 03:46:42 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Originally posted by Nelzie:
THIS WHOLE THREAD NEEDS TO BE MOVED TO THE RANTS SECTION. |
It didn't until you got a hold of it :) |
Well... it is a political thread and they can become quite ranty...
Message edited by author 2004-07-29 15:46:59.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 03:55:18 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Under the system currently in place in the US, money is power and power is money.
The information necessary to be an informed voter is not really that difficult to find if you look for it. It's just not served up to you on a silver plater because the money/power axis would rather have you thinking about the latest reality and idol shows, the Laci Peterson trial, or how many home runs Barry "Steroids" Bonds is going to hit this season while you are taking tiny pictures with your cell phone from the driver's seat of your gas-guzzling SUV. |
I am aware of that. The problem is that everything is hidden by what you mention and the periphery is covered by whacky nuts like Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh.
The truth isn't hidden, it just isn't being looked at. That's what I would like to see done by the 'average' voter, looking at the truth.
Message edited by author 2004-07-29 16:06:08.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 04:04:23 PM · #13 |
I'm not going to move it to rants (yet..) not everything not photo related belongs there. This is more of a general discussion and everyone's been mostly civil, so to the general discussion forum it goes! :)
PS: Voter turnout in the 2004 Canadian election a short while ago was at 60.5% -- an all time low! Only in the 1898 referendum on liquor prohibition Γ’ when just 44.6 per cent of the electorate cast a ballot Γ’ did a smaller proportion of Canadian voters participate in any nationwide poll. (from cbc.ca)
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 04:13:59 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by 'bdobe':
So, until the national Republican party abandons many of their radical policies and return to a moderate platform, I will continue to vote for candidates with a D before their names. |
And several people that vote for only the R would say the same thing about the Democratic party. Let's try to have a discussion about voting without picking sides and turing it into why you should vote for the person I like better.
There are negative stereotypes to both parties. I'm simply saying do the homework on the issues that matter to you and not just assume that the candadates follow the stereotypes. Vote for the person, not the party.
Message edited by author 2004-07-29 16:17:00. |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 04:49:29 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by louddog:
There are negative stereotypes to both parties. I'm simply saying do the homework on the issues that matter to you and not just assume that the candadates follow the stereotypes. Vote for the person, not the party. |
Again, on principle, you're absolutely correct -- it'd be hard to disagree with "stereotypes bad, independent thinking good." Of course, in the practical world, voting decisions must include past experience and evidence about the company a candidate keeps (i.e., party affiliation), in addition to a candidate's record and stances on issues.
Again, in the practical world, a single individual does not possess all the answers, and therefore must rely on a team of advisors to help craft policies, etc. (that's why we don't just refer to them as individuals, in stead we often refer to their administrations: i.e., the Bush administration, the Clinton administration... and so on). Because of this reason, because advisors are often pulled from the candidates' party, it is important to understand party affiliation, and the interests that the parties (as organizations) represent.
Therefore, while a candidate's record and positions are important, their party affiliation is equally important: as it strongly indicates the types of policies they'll pursue; party affiliation indicates the types of judges they'll appoint; party affiliation indicates the sort of foreign policy they'll enact; and, ultimately, party affiliation points to the advise they'll seek from those they represent.
So, certainly, "stereotypes bad, independent thinking good" -- just don't discount party affiliation, because it is a strong indication of what a candidate stands for.
Message edited by author 2004-07-29 17:20:35.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 05:02:49 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I'm not going to move it to rants (yet..) not everything not photo related belongs there. This is more of a general discussion and everyone's been mostly civil, so to the general discussion forum it goes! :)
PS: Voter turnout in the 2004 Canadian election a short while ago was at 60.5% -- an all time low! Only in the 1898 referendum on liquor prohibition Γ’ when just 44.6 per cent of the electorate cast a ballot Γ’ did a smaller proportion of Canadian voters participate in any nationwide poll. (from cbc.ca) |
Australia has an interesting system of issuing fines to people who don't vote without a good reason. I can't quite decide if that is a good thing, for forcing more involvement, or a bad thing, for forcing more uninterested (and thus likely uninformed) people to vote.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 05:10:21 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by frisca:
I'm not going to move it to rants (yet..) not everything not photo related belongs there. This is more of a general discussion and everyone's been mostly civil, so to the general discussion forum it goes! :)
PS: Voter turnout in the 2004 Canadian election a short while ago was at 60.5% -- an all time low! Only in the 1898 referendum on liquor prohibition Γ’ when just 44.6 per cent of the electorate cast a ballot Γ’ did a smaller proportion of Canadian voters participate in any nationwide poll. (from cbc.ca) |
Australia has an interesting system of issuing fines to people who don't vote without a good reason. I can't quite decide if that is a good thing, for forcing more involvement, or a bad thing, for forcing more uninterested (and thus likely uninformed) people to vote. |
In the US it would probably make more sense to allow a tax credit if one sends in the voting receipt(s) with the W-2 forms. |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 05:18:18 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by frisca:
I'm not going to move it to rants (yet..) not everything not photo related belongs there. This is more of a general discussion and everyone's been mostly civil, so to the general discussion forum it goes! :)
PS: Voter turnout in the 2004 Canadian election a short while ago was at 60.5% -- an all time low! Only in the 1898 referendum on liquor prohibition Γ’ when just 44.6 per cent of the electorate cast a ballot Γ’ did a smaller proportion of Canadian voters participate in any nationwide poll. (from cbc.ca) |
Australia has an interesting system of issuing fines to people who don't vote without a good reason. I can't quite decide if that is a good thing, for forcing more involvement, or a bad thing, for forcing more uninterested (and thus likely uninformed) people to vote. |
In the US it would probably make more sense to allow a tax credit if one sends in the voting receipt(s) with the W-2 forms. |
That would be a good idea, but a fine for not voting doesn't seem fair. I have not voted in some elections simply becuase I didn't care which of the candadates won (figured we were screwed either way...) |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 06:31:52 PM · #19 |
| A case where it was important to vote on party lines occured in one of the congressional districts of my state over the 80's and 90's until 2002. There was a Republican member of the House of Representatives, a competent legislator, closely aligned with the interests and desires of the district but increasingly at odds with the party as it moved farther from the center. The district is 2 to 1 Democratic in voter registration but this Representative survived election after election because of voting record, constituent service, being a good campaigner, accumulated seniority, and, most importantly, a person perceived as honest. When Gingrich and Co. took over the House in 1992 this Representative was stripped of key committee assignments for being too centrist. In subsequent terms the incumbent's ability to truly represent the majority of constitutions diminished; and the importance of returning Democratic control of the House, and committee assignments, rose. After more than 20 years in office a very effective person with a proven record closely in line with those represented was turned out of office in favor of an untried newcomer who campained on the platform of returning that seat to the party that was the big majority in the district. It may be a rare situation but sometimes it is important to vote based on the D or R next to the name on the ballot. |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 06:51:53 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Voters are only "politically ignorant" because our country has lead them to think that other things are more important than being politically informed. The people who are setting the agenda can make more money that way. |
And also to keep power. But yes coolhar, I agree.
Its a constant struggle for me as im always trying to engage friends and co-workers in the subject unsuccessfully.
Message edited by author 2004-07-29 18:53:34. |
|
|
|
07/29/2004 07:35:33 PM · #21 |
I think the tax credit is a great idea, but open to alot of shady behavior.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 07:43:52 PM · #22 |
I hope this is not too righteous, but I think it's sad that we'd have to resort to either a fine or a tax break to get people to do what is at once a privilege and a duty, that is: participate in our electoral process.
I mean, people have literally given their lives so that we have a say in what our government does; and, in other countries, people look to the U.S. for inspiration. It seems to me that the least we can do is vote.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 07:44:42 PM · #23 |
Not voting or spoiling your ballot is as valid as voting for candidate x, y or z. You are making a choice either way. If none of the candidates appeal to you then you can either not vote or spoil your ballot...
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 08:43:08 PM · #24 |
Tommy Thompson (R) was gov of Wisconsin forever. Wisconsin is probably the most democrat state around. It was the only state where Mondale beat Reagan!!!
|
|
|
|
07/29/2004 08:49:54 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Tommy Thompson (R) was gov of Wisconsin forever. Wisconsin is probably the most democrat state around. It was the only state where Mondale beat Reagan!!! |
Yes, the power of incumbency is amazing! The re-election rate for incumbents is 95%...
Elected officials can always count on people fearing change.
|
|
