"Fuck it, Dude. Let's go bowling." - Walter Sobchak
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
US Citizens: Please vote tomorrow
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
I don't roll on Shabbos. DON'T ****ING ROLL! SHOMER SHABBOS!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,922
- Likes
- 37,994
I voted earlier today. In my area there is almost no point. I didn't count them, but of 25 something local and state positions only 4 had choices from more than one party. Two of those were governor and lt. governor. One state judgeship and one public service commission spot. Everything is so gerrymandered you only end up with one choice in most positions. So you tick the box or write in someone's name.
And despite that voter turnout appeared to be very heavy around where I live.
And despite that voter turnout appeared to be very heavy around where I live.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #25
Ours wasn't as bad but yes, half of them had no one opposed.
Well it’s great to see voter turn out so high, it’s a trend here now too after years ( decades) of low turnout.
.
I don't see why it's so important to vote. Only people who have an actual opinion should be voting. People who waft around with the wind could end up changing the outcome on the basis of an amusing tweet or episode of a soap opera. The current system may usefully provide some elimination of arbitrary votes from people who don't really know anything about anything.
It should also be everyone's right to not be forced to endorse a selection of candidates they don't agree with. There's always the option to 'spoil your paper', but the voter needs to know about that independently (I don't believe that is included in the instructions? Or maybe it is), and no one knows why the paper has been spoiled: whether it's opposition to all the candidates, not decided, incapable.
If you are going to bring in a law in to force people to vote you must at least give them the option to tick 'None of the above' and, I would say, a 'Not sure' option, and then something more meaningful can come out of it.
It should also be everyone's right to not be forced to endorse a selection of candidates they don't agree with. There's always the option to 'spoil your paper', but the voter needs to know about that independently (I don't believe that is included in the instructions? Or maybe it is), and no one knows why the paper has been spoiled: whether it's opposition to all the candidates, not decided, incapable.
If you are going to bring in a law in to force people to vote you must at least give them the option to tick 'None of the above' and, I would say, a 'Not sure' option, and then something more meaningful can come out of it.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,410
I’m not advocating for the Australian law here but just as an FYI, there’s no legal obligation to vote validly, but merely an obligation to present at a polling booth, while OTOH there are no instructions at the ballot box as to how to vote invalidly.
In the US, there’s no obligation at all. I have no issue with that per se; what’s problematic is that there are additional practical obstacles, e.g. the ballot takes place during normal working hours, some districts are ill-equipped to deal with the turnout resulting in long queues etc.
IME here in the US, every polling place is open after working hours. And many companies (most?) allow time off for voting. Additionally, vote by mail and absentee balloting has become for all intents and purposes, universally available.
In the past 45 years I've been voting, in numerous cities and states, I have yet to run across any severe delays (I'm old-fashioned and don't choose to use the convenient absentee voting system, preferring to stand in a voting booth and yell, "TAKE THAT, YOU BASTARD!" while punching the ballot). That's not to say delays never happen, but they're the exception which is what makes them newsworthy.
The practical obstacles to voting are negligible. The more relevant issues for non-participation are laziness, indifference, and a strong sense of a lack of any real choices.
In the past 45 years I've been voting, in numerous cities and states, I have yet to run across any severe delays (I'm old-fashioned and don't choose to use the convenient absentee voting system, preferring to stand in a voting booth and yell, "TAKE THAT, YOU BASTARD!" while punching the ballot). That's not to say delays never happen, but they're the exception which is what makes them newsworthy.
The practical obstacles to voting are negligible. The more relevant issues for non-participation are laziness, indifference, and a strong sense of a lack of any real choices.
Fair enough, but it takes a certain strength of character to turn up in person and make the gesture of not voting. For example, you might feel that not voting might indicate your politics to the people there (who may know you). And then whether you don't vote or just spoil your paper (which feels a bit like vandalism) the reason isn't taken into account. Some people may just tick arbitrary boxes unless there's a none-of-the-above option.
All in all, I think the current system (in the UK for example) more-or-less allows everybody to believe that democracy is working -ish - without impinging on people's freedom to ignore politics if they want to.
Thank you for a very thoughtful post. To be coersed in any way is bad thing for democracy to work. Legally eligible voters should be free to vote, not vote, show up, not show up. I really like your idea for an explicit option to express displeasure on a ballot with the choices. I would go farther and suggest that those votes also count and require that any "winner" needs 50%+1 to win - so it is necessary for candidates to win over people, not just be the least offensive option that people are willing to vote for.
Do away with political parties and have independent electorate representatives, directly representing the people, forming the government. Isn't that what the Greeks did?
Oh, that would make life hard for lobbyists and vested interest big donors.
Oh, that would make life hard for lobbyists and vested interest big donors.
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
Stop worrying about stupid people. Big numbers ensure that the signal will still be visible in the sea of noise.
(RANT ALERT: I think this is the beauty of the wisdom of crowds, a «force» which is portrayed favorably by economics experts in pecuniary matters but not so favorably when the same «force» gives us Brexit, Trump, Hungary and Poland).
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,922
- Likes
- 37,994
Yes, I have to fully support this. It has been a long time since there has been any kind of voter suppression in the USA. Anybody who can't manage to vote doesn't have much desire to do so. Maybe one polling place is moved, maybe you have to drive 15 minutes further or something. If that is enough to hold you back, then fine. That would be at most voting inconvenience.
Big numbers don't eliminate bias. My comment referred to a temporary bias that might occur due to some brief fashionable cause, scandal, newspaper headline, episode of the Simpsons, candidate with an interesting name, etc. This is not the same as random noise.
What you are suggesting is that it is inherently a good thing that everyone makes the gesture of voting, even if they have no knowledge or consistent opinion about anything. The current system might just be the best compromise because I would guess there is a correlation between not having any knowledge or opinion and not making the effort to vote.
I agree that 'wisdom of the crowds' is a reasonable concept, though. The best people are probably those who are non-tribal, well-informed, think deeply but aren't certain about anything. You *would* want to harness their views in a wisdom-of-the-crowd system.
Last edited:
Similar threads
