Why don't people vote?

[Magus]

Theories? I mean, apparently the turnout in this last election, especially among college students, was pretty abhorrent, especially in comparison to the 2008 election, despite this election being every bit as important.

What gives? Does this country really need to institute some kind of unconstitutional law requiring people to vote like Australia or other countries to force people to do it?

There is only a general election once every two years. Even if you don't turn out for the primary (which you should!) is it too much to ask that you turn out for the general election? It literally took me three minutes to vote this year. I walked in, signed my name, went in a booth, hit a couple buttons on a machine, and that was it. Is that really too much to ask every two years?

I know, I know, sometimes you have to wait in line. Well, there are possible solutions to this. A lot of states allow you to vote early, a lot of them allow you to vote by mail, etc. I'm pretty sure countries where you are required to vote by law like Australia make it very easy to do. But I'm sure people still don't vote there and have to pay fines, unless they have some reason for their inability to vote (like religious or medical).

Personally I think we could do a lot more to make voting easier, like allow you to get absentee ballots at any time prior to the election as opposed to having to send in for one a month ahead of time, all states could offer early voting, all states could offer mail ballots, etc. There may be a little risk of fraud but we could institute security measures to catch that too. I think the advantage of having more voters voting would outweigh the money and effort that would have to go into getting more people to vote.

But like I said, even in countries where it is easy to vote and it is required by law or you face a fine, even there, I am sure people don't vote. You could put all the effort in the world in this country into making voting even easier than it is, and you would still get a low turn out.

So what do you think are the underlying causes? Not easy enough? Lines too long People don't want to go to jury duty (even though they also get your name off of your draft card if you are a man, or your state income tax forms, or myriad other places) so bad they are afraid to sign up to vote? Or do they psychologically feel their vote means nothing, even though the fact that everybody thinks that way is the specific reason it means nothing?

Thoughts?

[Krylo]

Because it doesn't matter who you vote for.

They're all assholes.

Edit: The reason the 2008 primaries had such turn out was because Obama convinced us he'd be DIFFERENT. He lied, obviously, but he lied well enough.

It has nothing to do with the voting process, it has everything to do with there not being a single candidate that is worth voting for. Oh hey, democratic majority? That's pretty cool... except for the whole thing where the democrats fuck around and sabotage themselves. Oh hey, republican majority? That's pretty lame... except for the whole thing where it's exactly the same as having a democratic majority.

The apathy has to do with the candidates, the two (one) party system, and the complete lack of any actual importance to anything we do vis a vis the government.

[Loyal]

What Krylo said.

It's depressing casting my vote for someone who's gonna change nothing and just screw up a lot.

[rpgdemon]

What all the above said, plus I couldn't get an absentee ballot. :(

I'd have voted, even with crappy candidates, if I could have, but I couldn't get out to vote, and didn't get an absentee ballot, or even think of it until it was Tuesday afternoon.

[Magus]

There are write-in candidates in almost any local or state election. There is often someone to support even if you don't think they'll win, and frankly local and state elections often have more impact on your daily life than national ones, in a lot of ways. There is more reason to vote than just who is going to be senator or representative in the national capital.

Sure there is an element of apathy but becoming less politically motivated seems like the wrong move to take, it would make more sense to attempt to change the things that make you apathetic. For example, voting in primaries increases the odds of getting a candidate you like and can actually stand behind. Just because they list themselves under the greater umbrella of the two parties doesn't mean there aren't broadly different political views within primary candidates, not to mention the existence of independents in every election. It was depressing when Joe Hoeffel was beaten out by Dan Onorato to be the Democratic candidate for governor in my state, because Hoeffel had a better record, but then again he did get a good 23% of the vote to be the candidate, if I just quit voting because of this one time that my candidate didn't get the nomination then I'd never see a point where my candidate won.

But it would be nice to see more people run for positions and try to break the mold of the two-party system. I just don't see how not voting at all is going to create encouragement for people to run, instead you will just get diehards in the two party system voting for people in the two party system. I mean, if Ralph Nader didn't even get the 2% he gets in every election he would lose all impetus to even try to run, and so would all other third party candidates. If they don't even see a glimmer of hope they won't run at all.

Also yeah rpgdemon one thing that could help is to make it easier to get absentee ballots, or revamp the entire system to allow for early voting, and mail ballots, or even in the future online voting. There are a lot of hurdles to go through to prevent fraud or whatever but I think they would be worth handling.

EDIT: Or if all else failed it would make sense to at least vote in the primary even if you didn't bother voting in the general election just in case you found a good break-out candidate you felt worthy of your vote.

ANOTHER EDIT: Also one of the problems over the past two years wasn't just the Democrats utter spinelessness. If you create enough spineless Democrats sooner or later they will vote the way they want without being terrorized by the thought that they won't get the independent swing vote if they actually follow through on their promises. If more democratic supporters had turned out in this election then maybe there'd be enough of them for them to quit jumping at their own shadows. MAYBE. Perhaps not but it couldn't hurt to get more of them in there instead of less if you want them to do things. The president can't sign anything if it doesn't get to him, is what I'm saying.

[Azisien]

I do not know how it works in the United States or this applies at all, however: In Canadian federal elections, who you vote for carries a bit of weight regardless of our absolutely broken FPTP system. Every vote a candidate gets ensures funding for the party. So while I may vote Green and as far as electoral success goes, that is pointless right now, my vote in effect gives them some more money for next time.

Does this exist in the US?

And if it does or doesn't, I dunno, I still kind of side with Krylo. Politicians are balls.

[Magus]

No, our system is basically based on whoever has the most money in private donations has the best chance of winning. There is a lot wrong with our system, I just think not participating in it at all is not the answer. I mean, if someone gets a lot of votes it might increase the chance of them getting the most donations, plus Obama was got into office mostly by purely small grassroots donations. It is possible for anyone to do this if people care enough.

I mean at the end of the day it makes no sense to not vote at all. At least vote in primaries. Remember what Plato said:

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.

I mean Plato apparently thought a lot of himself but then again so does the average American, soooo...

[Azisien]

Damn, Plato is one chill dude. It's hard to not agree with him.

I don't think my funding argument changes the fact that the peeps getting the most money from the evil fatcats probably are the ones getting elected. I know our municipal elections are awful this way. We just had an election and the rate of incumbents keeping their seats was like higher than 80%, and the loses were only due to some of them running for mayor and not being allowed to run for councilor also. Ugh.

[Magus]

The problem with campaign finance reform is no one votes for it because if it existed they probably wouldn't have gotten elected. There are a lot of dickbags in government.

Well the worst thing I see in local elections are people running unopposed. It's just not right. I wish I was 25 because shit I'd run just to give the guy somebody to run against. I'm probably not even qualified but then again he might not be either. If he is he can mop the floor with me.

Though getting enough signatures on the petition might be difficult (I believe it is a percentage of the district you are in, though local primaries may not require that sort of thing), but if your argument with people was "Well he's running unopposed don't you think he should have at least one opponent?" it might get through with people.

Besides which the apathy argument doesn't make a lot of sense in another aspect, if you are that apathetic why do you care if there is a decent person running, why not just vote for the least shitty one? You don't really care, right?

...they give you a sticker! It says you voted on it! C'mon!

[Krylo]

Besides which the apathy argument doesn't make a lot of sense in another aspect, if you are that apathetic why do you care if there is a decent person running, why not just vote for the least shitty one? You don't really care, right?

You don't get how apathy works do you?

[Magus]

lawl well if it is that staggering level of apathy I guess I can't argue with it. To me it's just stopping off on the way back from work, or in light of how quick it was, maybe on the way to work next year, though that might be pushing it, depends on where I'm at that day. But I can guarantee you if you are stopping in around 7 or 8 there is not going to be a line.

Also I kind of forgot that there is voting every year, it is just the ones every two years that are the most important. I forgot about this because in the last two years I voted absentee ballot so didn't remember going to the polls so didn't remember there was an election last year!

But if you could vote by mail or online would you do it, Krylo? If they heavily altered how people can vote? Could even the hardiest apathy be overrun at some point with enough concessions?

[Krylo]

Nope.

Because it'd still be between a bunch of people I don't actually want to have power or writing myself in (Lulz, pointless).

Or like, Fifth.

Hey, Fifth, what's your real name?


ALSO: Online ballots won't ever happen because you'd have people using ISP scramblers to cheat the vote anyway.

[POS Industries]

Fuck voting.

Next time, I'm running.

[Magus]

Maybe you could at least apply online for a paper ballot? I don't know how it is in other states but in order to get an absentee ballot you have to mail in an application for an absentee ballot, and it has to be a month in advance. Obviously this is to prevent fraud, somehow if you just printed a ballot out and sent it in they couldn't catch it, I guess they don't have anything to scan your social security number and see it has been repeated, or something like that.

But anyway, your desire to not vote even if it were super easy seems like it is not apathy, you seem to be very actively taking a stance on not voting! Don't put yourself down with labels like "apathetic"!

Fuck voting.

Next time, I'm running.

You're probably joking but I wish you were serious! I think too many people think it is impossible, but I think they try for too big a position first. Start out running for township supervisor or town councilman or something, for instance, see where it goes from there.

[POS Industries]

I'm actually not joking. The Democratic candidate for US House in my district made no effort to campaign. At all. He had around 8 grand in donations (compared to the Republican incumbant's $250k) and didn't even bother to put up a campaign website. I'd honestly never even known what his name was until I saw it on the ballot, and it turned out that his stances on social issues were complete horseshit anyway. Pro-life, anti-gay democrats wanting MY vote? Fuck that noise.

So I've already started getting in touch with the Ohio Green Party and trying to figure out what all I'm going to have to put myself through to mount a third party campaign here. If nothing else, I'm certain I can make more of a racket than the democrat and at least bring some attention to the pitfalls of perpetuating the death grip the two major parties currently have on our government on every level.

I gotta believe the local liberal population (as arguably small as it may be) have to feel a similar disappointment in the Democrats to mine, so what better time to try to make a difference?

[Thadius]

*Cracks knuckles, rotates head to crack neck, and throws the gentlemanly gloves on the ground.*

I do not, nor will I ever, refuse to vote. Every election? I voted.

Did I vote for one candidate or another? Fuck no. They're all pompous assholes and I'm not giving my vote to any of them.

Did I vote on the issues? Yup. Because there I know that what I vote for actually matters.

I have NO faith in America's political system. At all. Wanna know why?

We put people into positions where they could determine their own pay and/or term limits. And then we expect them to do anything for us while they sit around, give each other handjobs, and unanimously vote to give themselves another heaping helping to our money. And we, the public, still act surprised when they do this shit.

One of these days I'm gonna snap (more) and figure out just how to firebomb the place. Or nuke it from orbit to be sure.

[Magus]

Ah, good, I forgot about how you can also vote on new taxes and laws and so on sometimes, and how it is quite possible to not vote for either candidate in whatever races you wish.

Prop 8 in Cali for example could have been defeated if more people voted no matter how much you hated the candidates, for I am sure that California of all places has no lack of liberals, just a lack of willingness.

Of course, one wonders why the system couldn't be altered to allow us to vote on all new taxes and laws and just get rid of all these stupid representatives, except I suppose for the purpose of creating bills, moving towards a direct democracy, especially in an age of ease of getting to polls, but I guess the Constitution itself stands in our way...

[POS Industries]

Mainly the problem with letting any and all tax issues be up to public vote is that we would pass exactly zero tax initiatives and everything would kinda go to hell.

[Thadius]

Not exactly. So long as the tax is clearly worded as to what it's taxing and where it would be going, then the useful ones get passed. I.e.:

This will put x amount of tax on lottery tickets. Said tax will then go directly towards maintaining the roads and highways around y town.

Would get passed a lot more frequently than:

Oh hay we're in yer initiative stealin' all yer monies. Kthxbai!

This is also a prime example of why you should not allow Lolcats to be the ones who word your tax initiatives.

[POS Industries]

Yes, I'm sure the former has triple, maybe even quadruple the chance of getting passed by public vote as the latter!

But multiples of zero don't amount to much.

[Kim]

Fuck voting.

Next time, I'm running.

I like this idea. I should do it, too.

[Thadius]

Yes, I'm sure the former has triple, maybe even quadruple the chance of getting passed by public vote as the latter!

But multiples of zero don't amount to much.

It depends on how many potholes you see. Or hit. And if you really want that shorter path to grandmothers house without going over the river, through the woods, around the little girls in red hoods and avoiding the big bad wolves.

Contrary to what I tend to believe, so long as people know where the money is going and can hold the authority figures responsible for managing the money accountable when it doesn't get there, people will vote for sensibly-worded and sensible initiatives. Money has to come from somewhere, after all, and government gets its money from us.

The road maintenance example is sensible.

An initiative that intends to tax a hospital? Not so much.

And so the initiatives that should never have been on get pruned off, and ones that make reasonable sense remain.

[Krylo]

The problem is that for every reasonable person who realizes that money must come from somewhere, there are ten who think their income tax should be enough or, worse, fuck the gubmint.

I mean, we tried not making people pay taxes at the conception of the country. Guess how that went.

[phil_]

Yeah, I read the first three and last three posts in this thread, so sue me, but krylo wrapped it up pretty well in post two.

Candidate A: Rich asshole who hates me and people like me (as in, not-rich people).
Candidate B: Rich asshole who hates me and people like me (as in, not-rich people).

Why the fuck should I vote?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Because elections are inherentely rigged. And I'm from the country ranked the least corrupt in the world and with a system which enables small parties and indepedents to win seats and actually gain power which regularly happens.
Yoouse got to actually go to the election booth, though, and either purposefully spoil your ballot or vote for the most ridicullous candidate.
But it's still better than absolute direct democracy as some people have suggested.. Or brutal dictatorships they gave Plato wet dreams as night.

[Amake]

Here in Sweden we vote for stuff in the EU every now and then. I think that's pretty close to voting involving the federal government in America. By which I mean that for example I, who consider myself moderately interested in politics, have no idea what these elections are actually for and can't bring myself to care about some rich dudes far, far away who somehow think their decisions should be allowed to affect that many hundreds of millions of people.

So, more power to the state governments is the answer I guess.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That's more a problem with how the EU works- give them more power and it will sort itself out better. It will still be shit but better than individual countriews trying to fuck each over.

[EVILNess]

Where I live used paper ballots. I went in to vote, looked at the ballot, got depressed, and then wrote "fuck it" on my ballot. I then left and went home to drown my sorrows in cake and soda (Cause I can't drink).

Hate on me if you will.

[Azisien]

I'm actually not joking. The Democratic candidate for US House in my district made no effort to campaign. At all. He had around 8 grand in donations (compared to the Republican incumbant's $250k) and didn't even bother to put up a campaign website. I'd honestly never even known what his name was until I saw it on the ballot, and it turned out that his stances on social issues were complete horseshit anyway. Pro-life, anti-gay democrats wanting MY vote? Fuck that noise.

You should run as a pro-abortion, pro-gay Republican. Stick it to 'em!

[Doc ock rokc]

1. people don't think it matters. in mid terms they think that their vote is near worthless. in presidential votes they feel that the electoral collage will not listen to them or are bribed to vote for x anyway

2.people are confused about political parties. being that they have to appeal to everyone means they are vague, being vague means many cant find a distinction between them. also many find the long standing feud in between the two is ridiculous

3.no incentives for voting no punishments for not voting. While the Rich do get incentives for voting (because they feel like they have more influence and Knowledge on the subject)

4. People feel stupid at the polls at times. I personally felt stupid when I was at the polls because I didn't know everything. their was people that where handing out pamphlets but the both of them where a bit biased against the other.

[The Argent Lord]

My political science professor pointed out a week or two ago that voting is an inherently irrational behavior. Statisticians have determined that the chance that your vote will actually affect the outcome one way or another is somewhere along the lines of one in several trillion. It's one of the many problems with a winner-take-all system.

[Fifthfiend]

Not exactly. So long as the tax is clearly worded as to what it's taxing and where it would be going, then the useful ones get passed. I.e.:

This will put x amount of tax on lottery tickets. Said tax will then go directly towards maintaining the roads and highways around y town.

Would get passed a lot more frequently than:

Oh hay we're in yer initiative stealin' all yer monies. Kthxbai!

This is also a prime example of why you should not allow Lolcats to be the ones who word your tax initiatives.

We actually need to pass a fuckton of "stealin' all your monies" initiatives because we've been cutting taxes for decades at all levels of government and making a catastrophic fucking mess of our public services to pay for it.

[Kim]

My political science professor pointed out a week or two ago that voting is an inherently irrational behavior. Statisticians have determined that the chance that your vote will actually affect the outcome one way or another is somewhere along the lines of one in several trillion. It's one of the many problems with a winner-take-all system.

While I agree our system needs an overhaul, that logic is a tad flawed...

[Fifthfiend]

No I mean he's right, voting is a huge collective-action problem. It's made worse by the way our society is geared towards putting stupid barriers in the way of people voting and then blaming them for not doing it, instead of the way it should be, which is it being the government's responsibility to make sure that people vote and it being treated as a failure of good government if they don't.

EDIT Like a lot of the problem with voting rates in this country would be solved by

1. make national elections a national holiday
2. make it the government's job to register voters

because it's like... you're asking people to partake in an activity which on a purely individual level IS basically meaningless. Which is fine! Because like basically the entire point of having a government is to aggregate activity which is individually meaningless but valuable and meaningful on a large scale. BUT then you put stupid fucking barriers in the way of people undertaking this activity such as making them register themselves and making them take time off of work to go vote and have insufficient numbers of polling places (STRANGELY ENOUGH this more tends to be the casein inner cities occupied by poor and minority residents?!?!) and so it becomes more reasonable on an individual level for people to say ugh fuck this noise why bother.

[Magus]

1. I was thinking the other day as well Fifth, that we would do a lot better by making election day be Saturday, not Tuesday. Tuesday was put in place so people could get in their wagon on Monday morning and make it to town by the next day. There's basically no point to it any more. Requiring state workers to work one weekend a year to count the votes is probably not too much to ask for all the benefits they receive.

An extra national holiday would be pretty boss, too, though.

2. I'm not sure that the government can actively register people against their will, however, every year they could send out the registration form to unregistered people in the mail with a postage-paid return envelope, begging them to register. Unfortunately, this would cost a crap-ton of postage...but then again it would keep USPS in business for a few more years.

[Doc ock rokc]

1. I was thinking the other day as well Fifth, that we would do a lot better by making election day be Saturday, not Tuesday. Tuesday was put in place so people could get in their wagon on Monday morning and make it to town by the next day. There's basically no point to it any more. Requiring state workers to work one weekend a year to count the votes is probably not too much to ask for all the benefits they receive.

An extra national holiday would be pretty boss, too, though.Actually many Govs don't want to make a holiday because A) majority of voters vote early and B) many would just take the holiday and Not do the actual voting.

2. I'm not sure that the government can actively register people against their will, however, every year they could send out the registration form to unregistered people in the mail with a postage-paid return envelope, begging them to register. Unfortunately, this would cost a crap-ton of postage...but then again it would keep USPS in business for a few more years.

All government mail is free to the government. meaning they could do it for little to nothing.

[Ryong]

Brazil had a lot of elections not long ago. Our elections were a joke. No, seriously, we even had a clown voted for congress. Most voted, too.

Did I mention he doesn't know how to read?

And you guys think you have it rough.

[Kim]

All government mail is free to the government. meaning they could do it for little to nothing.

But there is still a cost to deliver it. Gas, work hours for the people who deliver it, etc.

[Magus]

Brazil had a lot of elections not long ago. Our elections were a joke. No, seriously, we even had a clown voted for congress. Most voted, too.

Did I mention he doesn't know how to read?

And you guys think you have it rough.

An illiterate candidate would be the most populist candidate! Obviously this is why he won!

Also yeah it costs the government money to send out government forms to everybody, for instance it cost them quite a bit of money to send out a form reminding you that your census form is coming, thus doubling the amount of money that was spent. Luckily they do see a significant increase in census returns because of the reminder letter, so something like that could be done with voter registration/election day reminders, perhaps.

[stefan]

I was a poll worker this last election. I can tell you that, at my polling place at least, less than half of the people registered to vote here actually came to vote.

Just to reiterate this fact, if half of the people who don't vote decided to get off their asses and cast a vote, they could pretty much bend the two party system over a fence. this is why, as I have said before, that if America ends up electing fascists to governmental positions, the people of this country deserve every ounce of pain they get as a result.

[Fifthfiend]

Actually many Govs don't want to make a holiday because A) majority of voters vote early

Exactly! Which is why election days should be a holidays, so that "early" isn't the one and only time available for most people who have jobs to go and vote, and eliminating a major impediment to voting for the many nonvoters who don't vote because they can't do so early and it's not worth it to take off of work for them to do so.

and B) many would just take the holiday and Not do the actual voting.

An excellent example of the hostility to voters which is at the heart of so much of what is wrong with our approach to voter turnout.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Just to clarify we have it mandatory that your workplace has to allow you time off to vote during voting day- not a fullday, enough to vote- generaly defined as an 1 hour. Do you not have that in America?
You don't need the full day to be a holiday- just mandate that employers have to let their workers vote then uphold that mandate... Yeah probably easier just to make it a holiday.

[Donomni]

I'm pretty certain we don't. I mean, some workplaces might have such a policy, but I don't think we have anything that's mandatory country-wide.

Considering the amount of influence they have over the country, corporations would want it kept that way, too.

[Fifthfiend]

Just to clarify we have it mandatory that your workplace has to allow you time off to vote during voting day- not a fullday, enough to vote- generaly defined as an 1 hour. Do you not have that in America?
You don't need the full day to be a holiday- just mandate that employers have to let their workers vote then uphold that mandate... Yeah probably easier just to make it a holiday.

Yeah, any kind of "X hour off to vote" arrangement is pretty much unenforceable and a shamefully obvious line of crap.

[BitVyper]

B) many would just take the holiday and Not do the actual voting.

I would BE one of these people, but if you're supporting the current structure, who cares? MANY would still use the day to vote who wouldn't have otherwise, and that's the whole point. I mean, if most people aren't voting, your system is basically a sham. I'd think a couple lost days every four years would be worth beating that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Not if you enforce it with extreme prejudice and reckess disregard for legal precedent.

Re: The public will take the day off without voting- I currentely use my hour off to go on errands usually. It's totally sweet. Don't tell anybody though.

[Doc ock rokc]

in my personal opinion, If we had some Immediate and selfish incentives to vote (like the rich do) then we would get a higher turn out. I have several ideas of incentives but A) majority of them would most likely cause problems in the long-run (as all things do)...and B) I want to Claim them for my own! I'm not going to just hand them out so some other Dip can take my idea and get rewarded for it. Yes its selfish but I honestly am tired of being the "good guy" and getting walked on for it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Just make it illegal- with the proviso that the ballot paper has a no confidence or "their all shit" box- as far as I remember you are allowed to ust drop a blank bit of paper in the box in Australia.
As Australia example shows you don't even really need to enforce it- when they first put it into place everyone knew it wasn't really going to be enforced and the turnout jumped around 35%.
The last Australian election had a 93% turnout. They still barely enforce the law and on the off chance they do track youdown you can give an excuse (like you were ill or your religion doesn't allow it) and even if that fails the fine is a paltry $20.
Like there really is no incentive to vote in Australia except that it is nominally illegal not to but even this small degree of "criminality" is enough to motive vast swarms of people to the polls, far higher than in most countries.
Like even if it doesn't increase the turnout massively it will still increase turnout somewhat and you don't relaly need to enforce it. There's no real harm in it.

[shiney]

Look at it this way. You could vote, and therefore have a chance of putting someone so inept at their job that they fail miserably at governing, and the country goes nowhere. Or, you could not vote and let people more motivated do it for you, and now we just got an absolute sea of people elected who proved they have just what it takes to further bigotry, endless greed and an absolute lack of any kind of morality. Now we've put half of one of the branches of government back in the hands of people who drove us off the fucking cliff to begin with, and you children bitch about "blah blah they're both evil"?

No, one is evil, and the other is inept. One doesn't care, and one cares specifically about only rich people.

Jesus christ you guys. That's why the country is screwed, not because both choices are terrible, but because "apathy" is the excuse for why the completely and demonstrably more evil choice won.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

So the choice is to enact the system with veneers of legitimacy?
The country is screwed because the political system is broken. If everybody in the country voted for the democrats the county would be still screwed to fuck.
The proper approach is to campaign for political system reform which you cannot do while still partaking inthe broekn system if you want any degree of legitimacy.
Working inside the system towards change only works if the system isn't actively designed to prevent such things and outright fucked in general.

[Doc ock rokc]

So the choice is to enact the system with veneers of legitimacy?
The country is screwed because the political system is broken. If everybody in the country voted for the democrats the county would be still screwed to fuck.
The proper approach is to campaign for political system reform which you cannot do while still partaking inthe broekn system if you want any degree of legitimacy.
Working inside the system towards change only works if the system isn't actively designed to prevent such things and outright fucked in general.

But the Entire point of the System was to resist changes like those in a negative fashion. in-order to keep the powers separate and waring against each other to protect rights...but also In turn NOT resist changes needed in a immediate fashion (such as defense in order to protect those protected rights) while also providing a filter to keep extremist ideas about while filtering them into more refined and realistic propositions. Finally it is strong enough to force down laws or social changes against popular opinion for the betterment of rights. Seriously It was designed brilliantly (In fact GENERATIONS of lawyers and Judges spent their entire lives on studying it!) the only problem is the populations apathetic actions towards things and the Massive need for money in campaigns. essentially Stupid people and Fucking money are fucking us up...just like the Framers thought

[Fifthfiend]

Look at it this way. You could vote, and therefore have a chance of putting someone so inept at their job that they fail miserably at governing, and the country goes nowhere. Or, you could not vote and let people more motivated do it for you, and now we just got an absolute sea of people elected who proved they have just what it takes to further bigotry, endless greed and an absolute lack of any kind of morality. Now we've put half of one of the branches of government back in the hands of people who drove us off the fucking cliff to begin with, and you children bitch about "blah blah they're both evil"?

No, one is evil, and the other is inept. One doesn't care, and one cares specifically about only rich people.

Jesus christ you guys. That's why the country is screwed, not because both choices are terrible, but because "apathy" is the excuse for why the completely and demonstrably more evil choice won.

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/woodman.gif

But the Entire point of the System was to resist changes like those in a negative fashion. in-order to keep the powers separate and waring against each other to protect rights...but also In turn NOT resist changes needed in a immediate fashion (such as defense in order to protect those protected rights) while also providing a filter to keep extremist ideas about while filtering them into more refined and realistic propositions. Finally it is strong enough to force down laws or social changes against popular opinion for the betterment of rights. Seriously It was designed brilliantly (In fact GENERATIONS of lawyers and Judges spent their entire lives on studying it!) the only problem is the populations apathetic actions towards things and the Massive need for money in campaigns. essentially Stupid people and Fucking money are fucking us up...just like the Framers thought

I love that you're calling the voters stupid for their apathy while applauding the government as brilliant for literally being designed with apathy as its foundational principle.

EDIT: Founders, brilliant designers of a system barring half of all people from voting (and all of two-thirds-people) (and also you had to own land).

EDIT and Presidents weren't directly elected, nor were senators, and the most individually powerful legislators were (and still are!) disproportionately accorded to the most depopulated backwater shitholes, and

[Magus]

At least along the line we had amendments to sort of put a few patches on the broken system. Now it is only sort of half broken...

Like seriously I still can't figure out why there is still an electoral college instead of a popular vote. Seems pointless, especially since in close races like the 2000 election the weaknesses were pretty damn obvious. I can't really figure out how it protects the rights of smaller states--I'm pretty sure winning Wyoming means absolutely jack shit because they have a paltry 3 electors in comparison to say Ohio with 20 or even Arizona with 10. The only way it would be fair to the rights of smaller states was if each state was worth 1 elector and that was it, straight-up, or there was some kind of averaging between the current system and another system where each state was worth 1, which would be even more confusing and unwieldy.

They get electors based on their population anyway, so unless Wyoming had even less say in the popular election than they do now under the electoral system(and if so, how is the electoral system a decent representation of their population?), it doesn't seem to be any different.

Besides which the winner-takes-all method means that it doesn't matter who wins in Wyoming, so there's no real point in people in Wyoming voting most of the time, whereas votes in Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, etc. do mean more, so if people in Wyoming realize this under the electoral system it would discourage them from voting, as their vote literally means less than someone's vote in a swing state or larger state.

They need to switch to a direct popular vote.

[Doc ock rokc]

I love that you're calling the voters stupid for their apathy while applauding the government as brilliant for literally being designed with apathy as its foundational principle.What I mean is that the system is working as it should. Meaning all the Bastards in power are fighting amongst themselves like the dicks they are. And The reason they Designed it around apathy is this. Back in the day it was Hell to get someone to vote. some had to travel for DAYS to get to vote. that's why they made election day about 2 days after harvest for the most popular crops at the time. (aka right after Market day) however that only accounted for like 40% of the farmers at the time. even then it was a hassel as many couldn't read or write and had to make sure the people they where relying on where not cheating etc etc. Need less to say They where Designed with a LOT of problems in mind...however We are now in a more civilized age...but the Sheer apathy making our numbers LOWER then those times is just retarded! So Literally it was designed correctly...its just stupid people fucking it up. and then their is the Money issue that has grown up recently.
EDIT: Founders, brilliant designers of a system barring half of all people from voting (and all of two-thirds-people) (and also you had to own land).because they would get kicked out or start a war otherwise. Literally people where not as open minded as we are now. Majority of the FRAMERS wanted slaves to be free and women to vote right off the bat...but still that didn't happen because if they put it down at the the beginning they would be called mad and kicked out. that is why there is a massive amount of wordplay in the first few paragraphs of the Constitution.

EDIT and Presidents weren't directly elected, nor were senators, and the most individually powerful legislators were (and still are!) disproportionately accorded to the most depopulated backwater shitholes, and

actually Senators are done by Popular vote now. Back in the day the state would decide to avoid "class wars" but because of newer devoloping states allowing such things the older states followed.

[Nakama]

My thoughts on the specific issue of the Original post is this:
I think that because there is such an open timetable for people to begin campaigning, people get Completely Burnt Out by the time voting comes a long and they want nothing to do with it. I'm speaking in regards to the american system I mean. I can't speak for other nations. Though I do know that in some nations the only amount of time a person can campaign is Three months before the election happens. I personally would prefer that to be the system. I don't need to know what this candidates dogs names are, I don't need to know that one's daughter's sexual habits, I don't need to know which one is into whatever embarrassing secret the others are into. I don't care. And I don't want the campaign process to have Such an effect on the person running that it ends up changing them before they even get into office. I think if they shorten the time that candidates can campaign before an election they will have a substantially higher turnout, and debates and press will be much more focused on who and what is better for their country and region.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What I mean is that the system is working as it should. Meaning all the Bastards in power are fighting amongst themselves like the dicks they are. And The reason they Designed it around apathy is this. Back in the day it was Hell to get someone to vote. some had to travel for DAYS to get to vote. that's why they made election day about 2 days after harvest for the most popular crops at the time. (aka right after Market day) however that only accounted for like 40% of the farmers at the time. even then it was a hassel as many couldn't read or write and had to make sure the people they where relying on where not cheating etc etc. Need less to say They where Designed with a LOT of problems in mind...however We are now in a more civilized age...but the Sheer apathy making our numbers LOWER then those times is just retarded! So Literally it was designed correctly...its just stupid people fucking it up. and then their is the Money issue that has grown up recently.because they would get kicked out or start a war otherwise. Literally people where not as open minded as we are now. Majority of the FRAMERS wanted slaves to be free and women to vote right off the bat...but still that didn't happen because if they put it down at the the beginning they would be called mad and kicked out. that is why there is a massive amount of wordplay in the first few paragraphs of the Constitution.
That is the commonly told story but the reason the Constitution is at is is because the majority of the founders were out and out scared of democracy. It had never been done before, it meant poor (ie stupid) people would get to vote and therewasimmense fear of mob rule and anarchy.
The founders were greedy little shits and also were very worried about holding onto power- the "state" was incredibly weak when it was first founded. Even Grover Cleveland had to open his own door. This cautious acceptable is understandable for 18th century men but not anymore today. Kick out the constitution and you'll beb etter off.
Long story short: The founders were scared of democracy, they only wanted it in limited amounts and designed a system that enforced that. Why would we give a shit what they had to say?



EDIT and Presidents weren't directly elected, nor were senators, and the most individually powerful legislators were (and still are!) disproportionately accorded to the most depopulated backwater shitholes, and
But those small areas are full of rich folks. Rich people are sensible otherwise they wouldn't be rich!