2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[Cratylus]

I'm one of those who wants voting to be difficult, not easy. Because voting isn't simply a right, it's also a responsibility... and we already have far too many people voting who don't truly take that responsibility seriously enough. The more barriers we place in the way of potential voters, the fewer "deadbeat voters" will bother to vote because of the hassle of it all. Think your average local DMV station only on steroids and I think we're off to a good start. Add in multiple forms and mandatory ID checks and I think we're getting somewhere.

And there ought to be a test you have to pass in order to vote. Not an excruciatingly difficult one, but certainly not kindergarten level either. You should have to be able to show at least a basic knowledge and understanding of the issues and the candidates on the ballot. If you can't, you are at the ballot box for the wrong reasons and should stay home instead of polluting the voting pool.

And the more money you make, the more weight should be attached to your vote. Why? Because the more you make, the more taxes you pay, and thus the greater share of the country's bills you are helping to fund. A guy who pays $1 million in taxes ought to have more "say" in how the government operates than a guy who pays $1,000 in taxes. And only people who can prove they have voted in the most recent election should be allowed to contribute to a candidate or political cause. And no corporate contributions to candidates or causes AT ALL.

And if you're receiving government aid, you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Period. You shouldn't be able to vote yourself "goodies" to be paid for by somebody else's wallet and hard work.

OK, all of you Democrats/liberals/progressives... you can have a conniption now. LOL!



And actually, I'm only half-trolling with this post.

 

[NorthCoastBias]

I'm one of those who wants voting to be difficult, not easy. Because voting isn't simply a right, it's also a responsibility... and we already have far too many people voting who don't truly take that responsibility seriously enough. The more barriers we place in the way of potential voters, the fewer "deadbeat voters" will bother to vote because of the hassle of it all. Think your average local DMV station only on steroids and I think we're off to a good start. Add in multiple forms and mandatory ID checks and I think we're getting somewhere.

And there ought to be a test you have to pass in order to vote. Not an excruciatingly difficult one, but certainly not kindergarten level either. You should have to be able to show at least a basic knowledge and understanding of the issues and the candidates on the ballot. If you can't, you are at the ballot box for the wrong reasons and should stay home instead of polluting the voting pool.

And the more money you make, the more weight should be attached to your vote. Why? Because the more you make, the more taxes you pay, and thus the greater share of the country's bills you are helping to fund. A guy who pays $1 million in taxes ought to have more "say" in how the government operates than a guy who pays $1,000 in taxes. And only people who can prove they have voted in the most recent election should be allowed to contribute to a candidate or political cause. And no corporate contributions to candidates or causes AT ALL.

And if you're receiving government aid, you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Period. You shouldn't be able to vote yourself "goodies" to be paid for by somebody else's wallet and hard work.

OK, all of you Democrats/liberals/progressives... you can have a conniption now. LOL!



And actually, I'm only half-trolling with this post.

Gourimoko after reading this...

 

[natedagg]

Ugggghhhh. Hate you right now. I put my answers in the part I quoted. First, let's get this out of the way - I get it guys. There are people with interests in making it hard to vote and that's bad for democrats and bad for minorities and bad for poor people. I get it. I am not for that. And no, I am not linking racist or bigoted for writing dems/minorites/poors. This isn't a witch hunt here guys. It's important to me that everyone who can has a chance to vote, and I acknowledge at the same time that not every system is perfect.
It's really not complicated:
-If you think that people aren't aware that they can vote absentee, then to solve that problem in a hurry, we should have a national "you can vote absentee" campaign. That's an issue, it's an existing solution to the plethora of excuses, to let's fix this issue: make sure people know that they can vote absentee.
-When I said "democratic" I didn't mean dems/repubs, but more "democracy". I get that more democrats can't register early and can't vote on voting days.

Nate, you're a smart guy. So let's think about this rationally, and critically challenge both of our positions.

First, let's talk about some preconceived notions, then let's readdress the issue.



This is false.

I don't know whats false b/c I can't see the quote you quoted.




This is false.

But increased voting is not democratic? As stated above, increased participation in voting is not more in spirit of the system that I care to support. I wish people would care more and I am in favor of figuring out how. If someone doesn't care until the day before and they didn't register, just like they didn't care until the day before and didn't register for the last election, and they don't care enough to figure out how to register, then they just don't care enough. They have a right that they aren't exercising.

The Vanhanen index is the most often cited measure of quality of democracy that's been in use since the '70s. The two primary factors are competition and participation (as measured by turnout).

I don't think your argument would fit with this definition.

"The index ... attempts to measure democracy with two variables: competition and participation (Vanhanen 2000: 253)."




The disengagement can be scientifically polled and has been. Much of it is due to the belief that votes don't matter. Yes, there's plenty of reasosn why people don't vote, and apathy is chief among them. So if someone doesn't care to exercise their right to vote, whether because it is logical or because they are lazy, that's isn't the system's fault. Y convince someone to vote? Enough people are entrenched that Hawaii will always break for the Democrat. So voting on either side is generally not required as early polls show who is to turnout. Thus, less engaged voters need not bother.

The same can be said for California, or Kansas for that matter.

The value of the individual's vote in Presidential elections is diminished, and since those elections headline the others, the effect is to ultimately disengage and disincentivize voting across other elections.

Beyond that, many who can vote don't have time to do so. You suggest voting by mail via absentee ballot; not many people are even aware that you can do that. Well then awareness of how easy it is sounds like a great place to start. This can be done today, with online PPM marketing.

Work any polling station and ask the first grandma that walks up "why didn't you vote absentee?" You'll get any number of answers from: "I wanted to make sure it counted," (meaning, counted on election-day) to "what do you mean 'absentee,' isn't that for expats and soldiers?"
Cool thanks for the SRS of 1st gradma on absentee question. Duly noted.



I think this is because you fundamentally misunderstand what voting is, I think. Ah yes, the ole' Nate bro, you are smart, but you don't understand what voting is. Gosh Gour, why don't you tell me what voting is?!? You mean, it isn't where you register to vote then chose who to vote for then do it? My fundamentals are all fucked up... OR you are twisting this shit and debating so many little things, it's like you, Jon, and Q-Tip conspire to just wear people down.

Look at what you're saying:

"to distance the reward of voting from the stimulus of commitment to achieve it."

Who is rewarding whom? The voter. Achieve what? the act of voting. Voting is a right. ok. Not simply a civil right but a human right to live in a democratic or representative government. There are plenty of rights. They don't have to be spoon-fed to people. I don't see how registering then voting is some sort of issue. You are angry and you want a gun. You can't just get it right then right there. There's a right, and there's a way, and there's a reason why you can't do it like that. I consider voting a right, and that means TO ME that if someone can't be bothered to register (yeah, that #1 reason why people didn't vote), then vote by mail (awareness is clearly a problem), then they'll just have to not vote. In the 4 years where they can't vote for POTUS, if they are so inclined (which serial non-voters apparently aren't), they could figure out how to get it done.

There should be no hoops to jump through to exercise a right. Imagine if you needed to jump through hoops to exercise your freedom of speech? Or to go to church? LOLLLLLLLLLLL. Guy has to get in his car to go to church, right? See that's bullshit. The church's sermons should all be streamed online! Somebody HELP ME, THIS ISN"T FAIR.



Not sure what you mean by "people voting for another," but there's nothing stopping someone from selling their vote; but it is illegal to purchase a vote. what i mean is one person gets another person's email, ss#, password, maybe even assists another person in getting that set up, and maybe even tells another person who they should vote for. WTF on the law of selling/buying a vote. The fuck outta here with that WEAK, PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL DIARRHEA OF THE KEYBOARD. You get my point, so stop dancing around it: there would (will) be problems. they could be solved incrementally.

I don't see how or why this is a logistical problem, or how or why this couldn't be done in our present system.



As skilled as I am, I don't know how to defeat such a system. If I could, I'd be a millionaire already having defeated bitcoin. You just said how things could be hacked now. If the government did it, it wouldn't be safe because they are idiots and wouldn't do it right.



Agreed, and if everyone was registered, and if people were more engaged, you agree those numbers would go down? I don't know what this is quoting.

Look at other developed countries that do the same.. America is no different, we simply lag behind with respect to the quality of our democracy. I have no idea how anyone would possibly think that somehow making it easier to vote would increase the quality of our democracy.



Do you think the bolded is rational? I think I can be prone to be a little emotional. I don't know how to see what was bolded without this taking forever. Oh yeah, this is where I think that 18%-->3%. No that's not rational. I was using an exaggeration.

Why presume to know better than those answering the poll? The purpose of the poll is to ask why people chose not to vote. They said they couldn't, they didn't have the means to. You can't simply throw that out. Right, so they clearly don't understand how to absentee vote, which isn't a system overhaul.



I'm not sure why you feel that it isn't limiting with Voter I.D. laws and limits on early voting becoming the norm in many states; and the intent of these laws is to control the outcome of elections rather than to increase voter turnout. I get it. There are shady people doing shady things. Therefore, we can combat that with an understanding of how one can vote without standing in line by understanding the register-->vote process and by encouraging absentee voting.



This has been addressed upthread, but the point is that the elderly are less likely to have responsibilities keeping them from voting. I can see the logic behind this but where's the data? Their lack of responsibilities is not the only cause. Not even close. Why are people in their prime earnings years smoking the young bloods too?

So there's my argument to you.. I hope you can challenge your own position and respond in kind and I'll try to do the same with mine and we can come to some consensus. I do think you'd ultimately agree that increased voter participation is better for democracy and would reduce the influence of corruption in our country, right?

but really now. let's stop making excuses for bad turnout - people are apathetic. I really can't sympathize with the plight of non-voters because I don't think it's overly restrictive to make it happen. It's just not. It could be better, there are people who want it hard because it helps their politicians, but campaign against apathy and campaign against understanding your voting options. Dammit, sucked in again!

 

[gourimoko]

I know you're shitting the thread, so I'll just go through 'em real quick.

I'm one of those who wants voting to be difficult, not easy. Because voting isn't simply a right, it's also a responsibility... and we already have far too many people voting who don't truly take that responsibility seriously enough. The more barriers we place in the way of potential voters, the fewer "deadbeat voters" will bother to vote because of the hassle of it all. Think your average local DMV station only on steroids and I think we're off to a good start. Add in multiple forms and mandatory ID checks and I think we're getting somewhere.

Barriers to exercise... a right? So the government should be in the practice of deciding who should and shouldn't have equal access to rights? Rights, now.. Not privileges.

And there ought to be a test you have to pass in order to vote.

We did that before...

Again.. we talkin' bout rights!

Not an excruciatingly difficult one, but certainly not kindergarten level either. You should have to be able to show at least a basic knowledge and understanding of the issues and the candidates on the ballot. If you can't, you are at the ballot box for the wrong reasons and should stay home instead of polluting the voting pool.

Because?? Who is to say you don't know shit, but your daughter told you to go vote (D); you trust her, and so you're going to do just that. It's your right to have a say, an equal say. One man, one vote.

Who is the arbiter of who gets to vote and who doesn't? How is this in anyway compatible with the concepts of human rights and democracy?

And the more money you make, the more weight should be attached to your vote.

..smh..

Why? Because the more you make, the more taxes you pay, and thus the greater share of the country's bills you are helping to fund. A guy who pays $1 million in taxes ought to have more "say" in how the government operates than a guy who pays $1,000 in taxes. And only people who can prove they have voted in the most recent election should be allowed to contribute to a candidate or political cause. And no corporate contributions to candidates or causes AT ALL.

Indeed. Welp, so much for democracy.

And if you're receiving government aid, you shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Period. You shouldn't be able to vote yourself "goodies" to be paid for by somebody else's wallet and hard work.

Under such a system, this guy:

would have substantially more votes then these folks:

At least 1 in 3 military families are on food assistance programs. :/

Or these folks:

The elderly account for two-thirds of Medicaid costs in Ohio. Is Medicare also a government-assistance program? If so... then people over 65 pretty much should stop voting.

Anyone ever get one of these:

You don't get to vote anymore... Fuck off.. Shouldn't have had kids!

OK, all of you Democrats/liberals/progressives... you can have a conniption now. LOL!

Funny you left out the Republicans..

But it's not a partisan issue is it?

And actually, I'm only half-trolling with this post.

Same here..

 

[natedagg]

I have no problems with registering. My problem was with this statement:

"The way it is now is just enough of a PITA where I like it. I agree with 1 vote/person, but if you can't be bothered to show a little, I don't mind if you have to sit out for 4 years to learn your lesson."

It is my opinion that is just dumb. I can't be bothered to go to the bank, and my money is pretty important to me.

Right, so you see my statement as dumb, I see your statement as a different viewpoint. You don't have to go anywhere to physically vote. So how does this have anything to do with you not liking to go to the bank, and the value you place on money? Never mind, your statement is stupid and illogical.

But seriously. You want something, you get it. If you don't care to get it, even if the system could be better, you don't get it. That's fine. You are perfectly fine to exercise your right to vote or not vote. It isn't hard to do no matter who you are. It just isn't. I can't be convinced that it's difficult for any significant # of people to vote absentee or learn about their options to vote.

 

[Cratylus]

@gourimoko ... I suppose we can make an exception for those who serve in the military. Their votes can have more weight.

Screw democracy!

Pure meritocracy, man! Pure meritocracy!

And there's a reason I left Republicans off my list... you know why.

 

[gourimoko]

Gourimoko after reading this...

Completely.

 

[gourimoko]

Ugggghhhh. Hate you right now. I put my answers in the part I quoted. First, let's get this out of the way - I get it guys. There are people with interests in making it hard to vote and that's bad for democrats and bad for minorities and bad for poor people. I get it. I am not for that. And no, I am not linking racist or bigoted for writing dems/minorites/poors. This isn't a witch hunt here guys. It's important to me that everyone who can has a chance to vote, and I acknowledge at the same time that not every system is perfect.

Okay.

It's really not complicated:

You're right, it's not.

-If you think that people aren't aware that they can vote absentee, then to solve that problem in a hurry, we should have a national "you can vote absentee" campaign. That's an issue, it's an existing solution to the plethora of excuses, to let's fix this issue: make sure people know that they can vote absentee.

How is this a better solution than universal voting registration and voting online?

-When I said "democratic" I didn't mean dems/repubs, but more "democracy". I get that more democrats can't register early and can't vote on voting days.

No. That's not what I mean, I mean "democracy" as in the practice/form of government.

It is not more democratic to restrict or in any way deliberately and artificially impede the voting process.

but really now. let's stop making excuses for bad turnout - people are apathetic. I really can't sympathize with the plight of non-voters because I don't think it's overly restrictive to make it happen. It's just not. It could be better, there are people who want it hard because it helps their politicians, but campaign against apathy and campaign against understanding your voting options. Dammit, sucked in again!

But none of this really says why it would be bad for people to be able to vote online, or to have universal registration.

It seems you've moved away from your previous argument which relies on the premise that voting is something to be earned. It isn't, it's a right, to be freely exercised.

Again, how is a by mail absentee ballot superior to an online absentee ballot?

The real question here is the use of a postage stamp or an SSL certificate. Personally, I think the SSL certificate is far safer and gives me peace of mind because I can validate my voting receipt. Again, how is an absentee ballot, by USPS rather than by the internet, a better method of delivery for my vote?

 

[gourimoko]

Right, so you see my statement as dumb, I see your statement as a different viewpoint. You don't have to go anywhere to physically vote. So how does this have anything to do with you not liking to go to the bank, and the value you place on money? Never mind, your statement is stupid and illogical.

But seriously. You want something, you get it. If you don't care to get it, even if the system could be better, you don't get it. That's fine. You are perfectly fine to exercise your right to vote or not vote. It isn't hard to do no matter who you are. It just isn't. I can't be convinced that it's difficult for any significant # of people to vote absentee or learn about their options to vote.

Imagine if the banks said.. fuck online banking! You gotta fill out a form and mail it to us.. It's just as convenient!

You don't have to leave home, so just as convenient right? Same difference?

 

[natedagg]

Imagine if the banks said.. fuck online banking! You gotta fill out a form and mail it to us.. It's just as convenient!

You don't have to leave home, so just as convenient right? Same difference?

Wait wut. You don't have something, online voting, and this online voting is something that doesn't happen that often. You are comparing it to online banking, something that already exists, and by necessity, banking happens with much greater frequency. Just please stop with the debating just to debate. It's diluting your product.

And who the fuck said that mailing in something is just as convenient as online banking? See, you don't understand the fundamental definition of convenience. Bro, you are a smart guy, but you really seem to be struggling with this, so I italicized the words to annoy you.

 

[gourimoko]

Wait wut. You don't have something, online voting, and this online voting is something that doesn't happen that often. You are comparing it to online banking, something that already exists, and by necessity, banking happens with much greater frequency.

But that's besides the point.

The point is the same @RonG is making. Money and voting both matter; the ideas are comparable. Why is online banking okay and online voting not okay?

You're saying the comparison isn't rational, but not saying why? Simply because of frequency?

Just please stop with the debating just to debate. It's diluting your product.

That's an ad hominem.. Not really giving two shits what someone thinks of "my product.."

And who the fuck said that mailing in something is just as convenient as online banking?

You said it's not that inconvenient in reference to people comparing voting by mail with respect to online banking. If you're not aware, numerous people including myself, @RonG, and @KI4MVP have used banking as a comparison.

You've said numerous times that absentee ballots are very convenient; hence the comparison.

Why not just answer the question that you've been avoiding for several posts already?

See, you don't understand the fundamental definition of convenience.

I don't?

con·ven·ience
kənˈvēnyəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty.
   "the museum has a cafeteria for your convenience"

Is online banking less "convenient" than banking by mail?
Would online voting be less "convenient" than voting by mail?

Bro, you are a smart guy, but you really seem to be struggling with this, so I italicized the words to annoy you.

The emphasis of particular words in my post bothers you? If so, I suggest you get a drink or smoke a joint, bro...

In the meantime, you could just answer the fucking question...

Why not institute an online voting system? If you have already, I must not be smart enough to have derived it from your post. Could you spell it out for me a bit clearer please?

 

[pr26]

If I can pay my taxes online, I should be able to vote online.

And yes, polling day should be a national holiday and people should get off of work. If a poor low-income person in a service industry can't vote because they can't figure out where to vote/can't get the time off of work to vote, then our democratic process is failing people.

 

[gourimoko]

If I can pay my taxes online, I should be able to vote online.

And yes, polling day should be a national holiday and people should get off of work. If a poor low-income person in a service industry can't vote because they can't figure out where to vote/can't get the time off of work to vote, then our democratic process is failing people.

Again, people do not fundamentally understand what rights are.

Voting is a right. You don't have to earn it and it's exercise should not be impeded artificially by cumbersome, nonsensical, and antiquated systems that are deliberately designed to cap voter turnout at artificially low levels.

Our voter participation in this country is abysmal compared to our peers.

 

[natedagg]

Okay.

How is this a better solution than universal voting registration and voting online?

It is an adequate solution to the question of whether there is fairness of the right to vote. I think it is convenient enough to vote as is. I don't think it needs to be any more convenient. It's quite easy. I personally like that people aren't universally registered, and can't simply click 3 buttons and vote online the day of. I don't see that as a grand injustice. I also think it opens up a whole new set of problems. I think that they could be solved, but I don't personally care for this issue, as it's rather "meh" to me. I don't think it's unfair how it is, no matter what party it favors.

No. That's not what I mean, I mean "democracy" as in the practice/form of government.

It is not more democratic to restrict or in any way deliberately and artificially impede the voting process.

ok. I don't see our society as any more awesome if there are more people voting because they can click a few buttons on the day of the deadline and make it happen. It's just not for me. I file it under a false positive of us being more democratic.

Right I get why some people would call this a deliberate and artificial attempt to impede the voting process and I think that's Charmin soft. I think it's weak. Each non-voter didn't have the capacity to get the registration and voting process done. It's harder than breathing. That's ok by me, so to me, so maybe the term is wrong, but for the most part I file it under poetic justice.

But none of this really says why it would be bad for people to be able to vote online, or to have universal registration.

It seems you've moved away from your previous argument which relies on the premise that voting is something to be earned. It isn't, it's a right, to be freely exercised.

I never took a position that voting is something to be earned. I have said multiple times that it is a right. This is ridiculous. I think that the online system will come, and it will be abused. In the meantime, democratic or not, this "freely exercised" right is absurdly easy to exercise. I mean fuck man, why not just get a show of fucking hands? Why not a text from your number too? It's like at some point, asking someone to take some personal responsibility is getting twisted into me favoring a system of oppression. It's comical but I think you are serious.


Again, how is a by mail absentee ballot superior to an online absentee ballot?

The real question here is the use of a postage stamp or an SSL certificate. Personally, I think the SSL certificate is far safer and gives me peace of mind because I can validate my voting receipt. Again, how is an absentee ballot, by USPS rather than by the internet, a better method of delivery for my vote?[/QUOTE]

So again, I think we would have more fraud by an online system for the fucking president of the US versus what we have now, by any way that you slice it. People don't know how to validate their voting receipts, and people don't know that votes will be cast for them by people who got their login/password/ss#, etc. People would sign up to vote old-school and find out that they had already voted. It would have to be a very robust secure system.

Personally, subjectively, I have no problems with people not being able to make a snap decision to vote, whether that is more democratic or not. My standpoint will not change: it isn't jumping through hoops to mail something in. It just isn't. It's another way for people to claim that they are a victim, and to call the current system oppressive.

 

[natedagg]

If I can pay my taxes online, I should be able to vote online.

And yes, polling day should be a national holiday and people should get off of work. If a poor low-income person in a service industry can't vote because they can't figure out where to vote/can't get the time off of work to vote, then our democratic process is failing people.

but wait, you can't vote online... but you still voted, right? You figured it out because it wasn't that bad, at all.

I like the idea of a national holiday or national half-day for voting. That's a great idea.

The "service people" can vote absentee, they can arrange to accommodate their schedule that day (like go during lunch), they can ask their bosses. It's not a process failing people, it's the people not exercising their rights.

Just look at our rights, all of them, and understand that this one is a layup - you mail some shit in. It's preposterous that anyone can claim democratic FAILURE because they had to work.

Ok, I am out. It's been fun.