6 ms·

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their politica

I'm likely to be flamed out of existence for saying this, but I'm against 100% voter turnout. A shocking number of people in my social circle get their political opinions by intuition. Never do they watch a debate, nor do they have any idea who the contenders are. When the primaries were running in my home state I asked several of my friends about their opinions and most of them only knew one person from each party that was even running. They were passionate about their hatred of the opposing party's most-tweeted person, and clueless about what their person's positions were, the states they were from, their voting history, their "moral fabric" as it were... Point is, screw my friends. If they only Facebook-Care(TM) about politics, they shouldn't be encouraged to vote anyway. They do not get to decide my country's fate. In fact, I want the opposite. I want a test. Step one: Name 3 people in your primary and name 3 in the opposing party's primary. Who is your party chair? Who's in the majority in the house? Who're the senate majority and minority leaders?

nathancahill 10y ago
I share the same perspective, but draw a different conclusion. Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Then, make voting as easy as signing up for Facebook (whether that means online or mail-in voting). An informed, active electorate is the single most terrifying thing to the Establishment.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  US schools can't teach everyone to read, expecting them to be able to effectively teach complex topics that involve nuance - let alone opinions - is wishful thinking.
  - nathancahill 10y ago
    I'm not suggesting government sponsored education, rather, the absence of corporate and super PAC spending in down-ballot (and up-ballot) campaigns.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Citizens United is easily the most misunderstood SCOTUS case in history at this point. Citizens United has pretty much nothing to do with educating the electorate. It is about the right of ad-hoc groups of individuals to exercise the same rights of speech that individuals and media corporations already have. Ironically, it has nothing to do with making it easier for the wealthy to influence politics, and actually makes it possible for the middle class to have influence that they would otherwise never have. Before 2009, there was nothing stopping Michael Moore from self-funding a documentary about Bush's war crimes on advance of the election. Citizens United affirms that a group of people who, unlike Moore, aren't wealthy enough to produce an entire film individually could still pool their money together and produce that movie together. They could launch, say, an IndieGoGo campaign to produce their own version of Last Week Tonight, focused exclusively on the election. This is almost entirely orthogonal to education of the electorate, though to be honest, it's easier to make the argument that Citizens United makes it easier to educate the electorate than the other way around.
bobbles 10y ago
Coming from Australia where we have mandatory voting, you're missing one of the biggest benefits. When people are forced to vote, the parties HAVE to accommodate that not only their 'die hard fans' are going to get them through the election. It leads to far less extremist views from the parties, or if they are extremist, they often temper some of the points later to ensure they don't have a huge backlash during the election to their policies.
- bigger_cheese 10y ago
  One argument I see often made most recently here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-14/why-do-we-have-a-two-party-preferred-system/7413578 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-14/why-do-we-have-a-two-p... is compulsory voting in Australia entrenches the dominance of Labor and the Coalition (the two established parties). However given the non-compulsory US political system is also dominated by two parties I'm not sure how true the argument is.
- ACow_Adonis 10y ago
  As an Australian, compulsory voting is widely accepted and touted here as a good thing, so even questioning the rhetoric surrounding it is likely going to get you mobbed, even if you try to preface with the statement that you don't necessarily think it's bad, you just aren't convinced it's necessarily or demonstrably good. But I'm not certain that it's connected in any way to less "extreme" policies in any empirical way beyond such reasoning being a local culturally embedded myth. Of course, there's no definition of what an extreme position is, because middle, left and right themselves have no objective meaning. And for the non-Australians, just do a Google Search for "Pacific Solution" and judge for yourselves how full of shit we may/may not be...
- abfan1127 10y ago
  how do they make it mandatory? Is there a voting police?
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    If you don't vote, you're fined. Presumably the government has a national registry of every citizen. If it's anything like my home country, then you're also obligated to keep the government informed of your current address at all times.
DSingularity 10y ago
We need to provide the accessible information then mandate the vote. I am sure a short ten to twenty minute video can sum up the critical issues for each candidate. Then ask them to vote. We cant throw out people under the bus for not being equipped to make informed choices just because their primary source of information is shared content in social media. Let's fix that then make voting easy. Democracy.upgrade()!!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
awt 10y ago
The only people whose time it is worth to research candidates is that of those who are paid to do it, those being lobbyists. What economic sense does it make for any individual voter to spend the weeks and months it would take to have any idea what all of the candidates that might be running might think on even a small number of major issues?
xvedejas 10y ago
It seems my friends who vote on intuition are the ones likely to already vote -- by getting higher turnout you might actually reduce their proportion of the vote. Don't shoot yourself in the foot on this one.
- inanutshellus 10y ago
  shrug YMMV. Luckily, mine just opine loudly then on voting day say something like "My vote wouldn't matter anyway, so why take the time off from work?"
sverige 10y ago
When I was younger, I got deeply involved in local, county, and state politics. I even ran for office once, was treasurer for a congressional campaign, and was on county and state executive committees. I met governors, senators, presidential candidates, and one sitting president. I had a well-informed opinion on any issue you can name, and changed positions on many of them as I got older. What did I learn? When I got to personally know all these politicians, including their unguarded utterances, I learned they don't give a shit about anything but power and money. Not one really cares about my family or anyone else I care about, except for their vote. Not one. Fuck voting. It's pointless.
- rebootthesystem 10y ago
  > I learned they don't give a shit about anything but power and money. Not one really cares about my family or anyone else I care about, except for their vote. Not one. A million times YES. I wish people understood this. Then voting would not be pointless. We need to figure out a way to place better people in office and that requires smart voters. This is also where the more Libertarian ideology could help. How? By stripping government of all but the basic functions they are supposed to perform. Over time our government has grabbed more and more power, money and influence. If we pulled them back to basics and reduced the reach they can have into our individual and business lives things would get better.
- formula1 10y ago
  Though I respect your real life experiences have caused a rationalized apathy. I personally do not believe that inaction is ever the correct course of action. So, instead of voting what would you suggest? Attempt to grow a fourth party? Encourage watchdog mentality? Make sure politicians fear the people they represent? What do you suggest? Get fat on potato chips and hope the world falls apart in a humorous way?
  - sverige 10y ago
    It's not apathy, it's a realistic assessment of where my time is best spent. Instead of lying to myself that I have any influence on politics, I focus on providing and caring for my family and friends. This includes spending time and energy on the people around me, my work life, and planning next moves that I have some control over. I spend very little time on "news" of any sort, only reading headlines a few times a week with a little more effort spent on things that affect my career. I've been living this way since 2000, and I have to say that it has paid off much more than any political involvement I engaged in. The alternative is to work hard to become a player in the political game, the end result of which is becoming just another asshole politician / lobbyist / activist who is either chronically angry or on the power and money treadmill. There's more to life than that. The real apathy is believing that you can make the world a better place using the machinery of politics, rather than making it better one person at a time with those you encounter in daily life. The latter is difficult, the former is easy.
drewrv 10y ago
Require a test to vote, and the test authors now rule the country.
mjgoins 10y ago
Uh yeah, the US had tests. They were there to prevent black people from voting.
riffic 10y ago
>I want a test. There was a time in American history where these were used, and they were used to disenfranchise people of color.
rebootthesystem 10y ago
Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed...a million times agreed! People are alarmingly ignorant of not only candidate's political positions but also lack the interest (and in some cases the ability) to analyze what they are being told and promised in order to reach sensible independent conclusions they might be able to use in driving a voting decision. We don't need more ignorant voters. In fact, we might do far better with fewer well-educated and engaged voters. No, I don't mean we should require a Masters degree. What I do mean is that there ought to be a higher threshold to being able to vote than simply being alive and wanting to do so. How would this work? Want to vote on a measure for, say, a new transportation law? No problem, here's a packet, study it, take a test, pass the test and you can vote. Want to vote on a new law affecting patents? No problem. Packet. Study. Test. Pass. Vote. Want to vote for President? It will require some work. Lot's of issues to consider. It might take a year of studying the issues just to be able to pass the tests. If we had a system where every voter really and truly understood the issues and could tell bullshit from reality we would not have the equivalent of "political trailer trash" running for office. No Clinton, no Bernie and definitely no Trump. The three choices in front of us today are truly vomit inducing, each at their own level. It is a sad statement that we finally got here, the same spot nearly every South American country has navigated over the years. Yes, that spot where Populism grabs the masses and does not relent until the destruction is obvious enough even to those not paying attention. I sure hope we don't go there. The sad truth is that all three of our candidates are Populist manipulators who are not at all good for this country. ...and our voters are too stupid to see through it. ...which is EXACTLY what has destroyed most of South America over decades of Populist manipulation. Gloria Alvarez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8cE54uKBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8cE54uKBo
LordKano 10y ago
I too an opposed to encouraging the uninformed to vote just because. I differ with you on some points. I do not watch the debates either. I don't watch the debates because I pay attention all of the time, not just during the election cycle. I care about a limited number of issues and I keep track of where politicians stand on those issues when they're not running for office. It's not that I'm not informed. I am more informed than most of the people I know. It's just that I don't care one way or the other about how strongly a politician denounced some other jerk's controversial opinion when I step into the voting booth. That's the kind of gotcha issue that the primaries have started to feature.
specialist 10y ago
The fix to low-information voting is to disenfranchise everyone who doesn't share your values, worldview? In other words, maintain the status quo.
dcacaac 10y ago
> I want a test. Step one: Name 3 people in your primary and name 3 in the opposing party's primary. Who is your party chair? Who's in the majority in the house? Who're the senate majority and minority leaders? I don't know those last two for sure. I don't really care about the minutiae of what happens in the morally bankrupt and corrupt US government, but I am politically informed. If I vote it'll be for Jill Stein. Should my vote not count because I failed this test?

nathancahill 10y ago

I share the same perspective, but draw a different conclusion. Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Then, make voting as easy as signing up for Facebook (whether that means online or mail-in voting). An informed, active electorate is the single most terrifying thing to the Establishment.

caseysoftware 10y ago
US schools can't teach everyone to read, expecting them to be able to effectively teach complex topics that involve nuance - let alone opinions - is wishful thinking.
- nathancahill 10y ago
  I'm not suggesting government sponsored education, rather, the absence of corporate and super PAC spending in down-ballot (and up-ballot) campaigns.
chimeracoder 10y ago
> Instead, educate the electorate, the first step of which is reversing Citizens United. Citizens United is easily the most misunderstood SCOTUS case in history at this point. Citizens United has pretty much nothing to do with educating the electorate. It is about the right of ad-hoc groups of individuals to exercise the same rights of speech that individuals and media corporations already have. Ironically, it has nothing to do with making it easier for the wealthy to influence politics, and actually makes it possible for the middle class to have influence that they would otherwise never have. Before 2009, there was nothing stopping Michael Moore from self-funding a documentary about Bush's war crimes on advance of the election. Citizens United affirms that a group of people who, unlike Moore, aren't wealthy enough to produce an entire film individually could still pool their money together and produce that movie together. They could launch, say, an IndieGoGo campaign to produce their own version of Last Week Tonight, focused exclusively on the election. This is almost entirely orthogonal to education of the electorate, though to be honest, it's easier to make the argument that Citizens United makes it easier to educate the electorate than the other way around.

bobbles 10y ago

Coming from Australia where we have mandatory voting, you're missing one of the biggest benefits. When people are forced to vote, the parties HAVE to accommodate that not only their 'die hard fans' are going to get them through the election. It leads to far less extremist views from the parties, or if they are extremist, they often temper some of the points later to ensure they don't have a huge backlash during the election to their policies.

bigger_cheese 10y ago
One argument I see often made most recently here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-14/why-do-we-have-a-two-party-preferred-system/7413578 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-14/why-do-we-have-a-two-p... is compulsory voting in Australia entrenches the dominance of Labor and the Coalition (the two established parties). However given the non-compulsory US political system is also dominated by two parties I'm not sure how true the argument is.
ACow_Adonis 10y ago
As an Australian, compulsory voting is widely accepted and touted here as a good thing, so even questioning the rhetoric surrounding it is likely going to get you mobbed, even if you try to preface with the statement that you don't necessarily think it's bad, you just aren't convinced it's necessarily or demonstrably good. But I'm not certain that it's connected in any way to less "extreme" policies in any empirical way beyond such reasoning being a local culturally embedded myth. Of course, there's no definition of what an extreme position is, because middle, left and right themselves have no objective meaning. And for the non-Australians, just do a Google Search for "Pacific Solution" and judge for yourselves how full of shit we may/may not be...
abfan1127 10y ago
how do they make it mandatory? Is there a voting police?
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  If you don't vote, you're fined. Presumably the government has a national registry of every citizen. If it's anything like my home country, then you're also obligated to keep the government informed of your current address at all times.

DSingularity 10y ago

We need to provide the accessible information then mandate the vote. I am sure a short ten to twenty minute video can sum up the critical issues for each candidate. Then ask them to vote. We cant throw out people under the bus for not being equipped to make informed choices just because their primary source of information is shared content in social media. Let's fix that then make voting easy. Democracy.upgrade()!!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

awt 10y ago

The only people whose time it is worth to research candidates is that of those who are paid to do it, those being lobbyists. What economic sense does it make for any individual voter to spend the weeks and months it would take to have any idea what all of the candidates that might be running might think on even a small number of major issues?

xvedejas 10y ago

It seems my friends who vote on intuition are the ones likely to already vote -- by getting higher turnout you might actually reduce their proportion of the vote. Don't shoot yourself in the foot on this one.

inanutshellus 10y ago
shrug YMMV. Luckily, mine just opine loudly then on voting day say something like "My vote wouldn't matter anyway, so why take the time off from work?"

sverige 10y ago

When I was younger, I got deeply involved in local, county, and state politics. I even ran for office once, was treasurer for a congressional campaign, and was on county and state executive committees. I met governors, senators, presidential candidates, and one sitting president. I had a well-informed opinion on any issue you can name, and changed positions on many of them as I got older. What did I learn? When I got to personally know all these politicians, including their unguarded utterances, I learned they don't give a shit about anything but power and money. Not one really cares about my family or anyone else I care about, except for their vote. Not one. Fuck voting. It's pointless.

rebootthesystem 10y ago
> I learned they don't give a shit about anything but power and money. Not one really cares about my family or anyone else I care about, except for their vote. Not one. A million times YES. I wish people understood this. Then voting would not be pointless. We need to figure out a way to place better people in office and that requires smart voters. This is also where the more Libertarian ideology could help. How? By stripping government of all but the basic functions they are supposed to perform. Over time our government has grabbed more and more power, money and influence. If we pulled them back to basics and reduced the reach they can have into our individual and business lives things would get better.
formula1 10y ago
Though I respect your real life experiences have caused a rationalized apathy. I personally do not believe that inaction is ever the correct course of action. So, instead of voting what would you suggest? Attempt to grow a fourth party? Encourage watchdog mentality? Make sure politicians fear the people they represent? What do you suggest? Get fat on potato chips and hope the world falls apart in a humorous way?
- sverige 10y ago
  It's not apathy, it's a realistic assessment of where my time is best spent. Instead of lying to myself that I have any influence on politics, I focus on providing and caring for my family and friends. This includes spending time and energy on the people around me, my work life, and planning next moves that I have some control over. I spend very little time on "news" of any sort, only reading headlines a few times a week with a little more effort spent on things that affect my career. I've been living this way since 2000, and I have to say that it has paid off much more than any political involvement I engaged in. The alternative is to work hard to become a player in the political game, the end result of which is becoming just another asshole politician / lobbyist / activist who is either chronically angry or on the power and money treadmill. There's more to life than that. The real apathy is believing that you can make the world a better place using the machinery of politics, rather than making it better one person at a time with those you encounter in daily life. The latter is difficult, the former is easy.

drewrv 10y ago

Require a test to vote, and the test authors now rule the country.

mjgoins 10y ago

Uh yeah, the US had tests. They were there to prevent black people from voting.

riffic 10y ago

>I want a test. There was a time in American history where these were used, and they were used to disenfranchise people of color.

rebootthesystem 10y ago

Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed...a million times agreed! People are alarmingly ignorant of not only candidate's political positions but also lack the interest (and in some cases the ability) to analyze what they are being told and promised in order to reach sensible independent conclusions they might be able to use in driving a voting decision. We don't need more ignorant voters. In fact, we might do far better with fewer well-educated and engaged voters. No, I don't mean we should require a Masters degree. What I do mean is that there ought to be a higher threshold to being able to vote than simply being alive and wanting to do so. How would this work? Want to vote on a measure for, say, a new transportation law? No problem, here's a packet, study it, take a test, pass the test and you can vote. Want to vote on a new law affecting patents? No problem. Packet. Study. Test. Pass. Vote. Want to vote for President? It will require some work. Lot's of issues to consider. It might take a year of studying the issues just to be able to pass the tests. If we had a system where every voter really and truly understood the issues and could tell bullshit from reality we would not have the equivalent of "political trailer trash" running for office. No Clinton, no Bernie and definitely no Trump. The three choices in front of us today are truly vomit inducing, each at their own level. It is a sad statement that we finally got here, the same spot nearly every South American country has navigated over the years. Yes, that spot where Populism grabs the masses and does not relent until the destruction is obvious enough even to those not paying attention. I sure hope we don't go there. The sad truth is that all three of our candidates are Populist manipulators who are not at all good for this country. ...and our voters are too stupid to see through it. ...which is EXACTLY what has destroyed most of South America over decades of Populist manipulation. Gloria Alvarez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8cE54uKBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8cE54uKBo

LordKano 10y ago

I too an opposed to encouraging the uninformed to vote just because. I differ with you on some points. I do not watch the debates either. I don't watch the debates because I pay attention all of the time, not just during the election cycle. I care about a limited number of issues and I keep track of where politicians stand on those issues when they're not running for office. It's not that I'm not informed. I am more informed than most of the people I know. It's just that I don't care one way or the other about how strongly a politician denounced some other jerk's controversial opinion when I step into the voting booth. That's the kind of gotcha issue that the primaries have started to feature.

specialist 10y ago

The fix to low-information voting is to disenfranchise everyone who doesn't share your values, worldview? In other words, maintain the status quo.

dcacaac 10y ago

> I want a test. Step one: Name 3 people in your primary and name 3 in the opposing party's primary. Who is your party chair? Who's in the majority in the house? Who're the senate majority and minority leaders? I don't know those last two for sure. I don't really care about the minutiae of what happens in the morally bankrupt and corrupt US government, but I am politically informed. If I vote it'll be for Jill Stein. Should my vote not count because I failed this test?