This reminds me of those ads for Everest college with the guy telling the viewer to get off your ass and go to college. It's really sad if a person needs famous people to tell you to vote in order to decide to, let alone famous people acting condescending.
Ummm guess we gotta vote now guys, the famous people say so;.
They also told us to vote on page 2 so I guess they are serious about it. ; )
I do think it is important to vote actually, whether or not it matters. However, Hollywood + Politics mix, pisses me off more then just Politics on its own. As if these people don't have enough going for them already, now they're tyring to make people feel guilty for not voting? [subliminal]You want to be as pretty, rich, funny, as us...better vote![/subliminal]
The last couple of presidential elections have been decided by astonishingly tiny numbers of votes, if you happen to live in the right state. So yeah, it's worth a shot.
so... i registered. just in the nick of time!
now to vote. i heard you can get them to mail you a ballet thingy...
+1 Obama yay it won't be my fault. unless too much damage has been done or Obama sucks. go Obama!
Whether or not the President is the real power in charge of this country. Whether or not our individual vote will count for anything. I still feel it is our responsibility to vote. To tell the world, we WANT to decide who our leaders are. When a clear separation occurs between citizens and government/corporations, votes will be our voice. But for now, it's better to vote for the lesser of two evils, or the greater to present the most change for good. It's a unified voice of the country that says "we want to be well, and respected". If the country is run by business, than it will work as a business. The business must satisfy the needs of the people, or close.
Ill start voting when they lower the age of becoming president. im sick of these old fucks. they need to ditch the lame suit and ties. with there red white and blue banner/logos. christ get a graphic designer already and visit the rest of the color spectrum.
Once im old enough to run for prez, best believe i will be! Upon that time, i will be taking up smoking and drinking publicly at my speeches. Its about time someone has a glass of scotch while tossn the truth down on people.
I want an imperfect person, that does there job well and right. Also one that owns up to there mistakes.
Just to clarify: Heck yes, voting matters, pal! Check out this comment:
"This looks like a lame attempt by Ruben Bolling to enodrse O-BUM-a by slamming McCain.
Well, Bolling, you brainless meathead sleazeball, let me tell you something: I would much rather vote for John McCain than that terrorist-sympathizer O-BUM-a any time! Consider this: if Obama gets elected, how soon do you think terrorist attacks on this country will increase? Obama could pull enough strings to let groups like Al-Qaeda and perhaps the Taliban to infiltrate this country. Before long, you’ll be seeing reports of bin Laden sightings right here in the U. S. of A., pal! and forget about the Constitution: Obama will have it abolished and NO ONE will have any rights! He may deny it now, but it wouldn’t be the first time a candidate lied through his gutless teeth. Don’t fall for Obama’s lies–don’t let him become an American “Hitler”! Vote for John McCain!"
O-BUM-a the terrarrorist! :O
I bet you didn't know!
Isn't there something that can be done about these people? Hold an apple pie and flag waving convention in a large tank that can be conveniently filled with cement or some such?
For me, ever since I could vote, I haven't liked either candidate. It's like they intentionally pick the slimiest shit they can find. I typically use my vote to show my disapproval of the crap, by voting for an independent. At least there's a chance that they might get enough votes for future funding.
This year is the first year I've got interest in a candidate. I still wish there was a bit more to get me excited about him, but Obama has my vote just because I don't want McCain/Palin in there.
As Randall said, it's at least worth it for the local items on the ballot too.
The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[15] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.
and i don't believe everyone has the capacity to vote the right person; like how a lot of people do drugs or commit suicide, some people just don't know whats right for themselves.
Talon: they do, in the sense that you can waste your vote on one of the other parties, who have no hopes of getting to power. Which is a real shame, mind. I think the two-party system is a terrible, terrible way to run an election. Choosing between 8 parties would be more difficult, sure, but it would also diversify things a bit. Make it so it doesn't end up being 'so that party hates gays? OKAY HERES MY VOTE'. The current system just enables parties to appeal to fundamentalists to secure a victory.
My point is: if there are only two opposing parties, it makes it almost impossible for them to agree on something. The system almost drives them to provide the polar opposite to the other's opinions.
A two party system allows for a majority to rule. If you have a three+ party system a minority can rule. If you think things are bad now wait until an 8 party election is held with some true nut job who gets 14% (all one would need to win) and goes medival on our buttocks.
I vote because I believe it is a privilege we have in the United States. Not everyone in the world can vote, so I exercise that privilege.
Also its good to register because you can vote on props. Those can really effect you...especially some of the marijuana and gay marriage ones that are going to be showing up in California soon.
Sean: Ah, but the point is that all the power isn't in the hand of one extremist nutjob. I'm talking about a multi-party system, in which several parties form a government. It's somewhat like the way in which your congress has seats from multiple parties, except they have a bit more to say.
In practice, you see that -instead of the American left versus right system- you get all different shades between left and right. When you look at it from afar, what you might noticed at first is that there are some parties that go very far in either direction (nationalist at the far right, communist at the far left, I suppose), but that's only one part of it. The beauty's in the middle-ground, in my opinion.
Well, I say beauty, which is overstating things a bit. Like all political systems, it's not perfect, it's merely better than some of the other ones. And while it does a worse job at representing the extremes (in my experience. Religion hasn't been on the political agenda for a while now, certainly not in American proportions... except for the parties who base their entire ideology upon it, who will only ever be a minority of the government) and will therefore be less appealing to those who are now in systems where their government official is deeply religious, and uses it as a political policy, it does do a better job at representing everyone.
Christ, that was a lot of talking, and not all of it made an equal amount of sense. I hope it was clear enough
It's somewhat odd to be defending the system of my birth-country as well, now that the Belgian government is in pieces, but that's everything to do with the fact that we need to balance two entirely different halves of a bilingual nation.
like how a lot of people do drugs or commit suicide, some people just don't know whats right for themselves.
That's an err.. interesting quote. Not a very nuanced opinion, is it? I wouldn't say drugs are always a bad choice, for one. Everything in moderation, and all that, as well as 'each to his own'. Perhaps you've heard one too many horror story, but remember that alcohol and tobbaco are drugs as well, which would make a LOT of people unfit to vote.
Suicide's a different matter, but often times those who commit suicide aren't thinking entirely clearly. It doesn't reflect on whether they're fit to make a decision on regular occasions, it only reflects on their mindset at that moment (which I believe -given the right conditions- almost anyone could get into) and whether they believe life as they experience it to be worth the bother or not.
To help Pea's point along with an analogy. When you have two colors your blending choices are limited. When you add a 3rd suddenly the entire spectrum opens up and a lot more options are available.
Instead of one side giving into the stronger side and going down with claws flailing we might see something more like the actual best idea being put forward. The current system of land mine legislation is pretty much broken unless its a 1 party system, then its pretty much dangerous as we've seen the last 8 years. Hopefully the dems will have a clear enough mandate from the people and will move things in the right direction, but its still a 1 party system, when it works...
That's an err.. interesting quote. Not a very nuanced opinion, is it? I wouldn't say drugs are always a bad choice, for one. Everything in moderation, and all that, as well as 'each to his own'. Perhaps you've heard one too many horror story, but remember that alcohol and tobbaco are drugs as well, which would make a LOT of people unfit to vote.
Suicide's a different matter, but often times those who commit suicide aren't thinking entirely clearly. It doesn't reflect on whether they're fit to make a decision on regular occasions, it only reflects on their mindset at that moment (which I believe -given the right conditions- almost anyone could get into) and whether they believe life as they experience it to be worth the bother or not.
im not saying people who do drugs are not fit to vote (or the opposite),its not the point. i'm illustrating how people tend to make the bad decisions even when given a better choice. you say drugs can be ok, but would you choose smoking in moderation over not smoking at all, if you can help it?
Levin: I see your point, and I certainly would choose not smoking, but that's mostly because it's pointless. People can do drugs for an experience, though, and it can positively effect their further lives, as any experience can. I'm not really arguing about anything here, just trying to make your claim a bit more nuanced than it was!
To help Pea's point along with an analogy. When you have two colors your blending choices are limited. When you add a 3rd suddenly the entire spectrum opens up and a lot more options are available.
Voting in primaries offers plenty of colors if that's all you want, but adding parties in the final election opens the door to minority rule.
And still you choose to just go ahead with your misunderstanding. Instead of only reading Vig's post, how about reading the one it supports as well? I wasn't talking about a single party ruling.
Voting in primaries offers plenty of colors if that's all you want, but adding parties in the final election opens the door to minority rule.
We're talking about voting for a US president, not an emperor. Even if a minority did support a particular candidate and he got elected, he still has to work with Congress and abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. And the more parties we have in Congress, the less powerful that President would be.
Voting in primaries offers plenty of colors if that's all you want, but adding parties in the final election opens the door to minority rule.
So far Washington State is the only state that doesn't mandate that you pick a party and stick to it while voting in the primaries. Which means 49 of the 50 states when people go to vote in primaries they are locked to 1 party for selection.
I fail to see how that offers more choices when you're stuck picking red OR blue. It's one color for everything, often one candidate and often not the best person for the job. Your stuck if you really want a red gov and a blue senator.
Thankfully I live in a state that allows the top two candidates move on regardless of party affiliation. Do away with the parties all together. Have the right people for the job, and have them actually work for their money instead of falling back to what party leaders dictate. We need leaders not sheep who happen to be in the right box at the right time.
Example of how the 2 party system is hurting us:
The 2 party system puts beer goggles on voters.
The American people are cleaning house, out with Rep/GOP and in with Dem. If you have Dem by your name you could be a complete douche and your in like Flynn. You could be the perfect person for the job and if you have Rep/GOP by your name you're screwed.
Example #2:
If the majority is controlled by one party and follows its leaders that puts the majority of congress in the hands of a few people. If those people listen to one person the president, you've thrown out the entire system of checks and balances.
If you have more parties its harder for a few people to influence the majority. It's harder for people to chuck whatever kind of legislation they want on the floor and it gets passed without anyone reading it.
Also there is a growing minority of people that do not like the platform of either party. I don't vote blindly down party lines, I vote for the best person to do the job.
im not saying people who do drugs are not fit to vote (or the opposite),its not the point. i'm illustrating how people tend to make the bad decisions even when given a better choice. you say drugs can be ok, but would you choose smoking in moderation over not smoking at all, if you can help it?
So far Washington State is the only state that doesn't mandate that you pick a party and stick to it while voting in the primaries. Which means 49 of the 50 states when people go to vote in primaries they are locked to 1 party for selection.
I fail to see how that offers more choices when you're stuck picking red OR blue. It's one color for everything, often one candidate and often not the best person for the job. Your stuck if you really want a red gov and a blue senator.
Thankfully I live in a state that allows the top two candidates move on regardless of party affiliation. Do away with the parties all together. Have the right people for the job, and have them actually work for their money instead of falling back to what party leaders dictate. We need leaders not sheep who happen to be in the right box at the right time.
Example of how the 2 party system is hurting us:
The 2 party system puts beer goggles on voters.
The American people are cleaning house, out with Rep/GOP and in with Dem. If you have Dem by your name you could be a complete douche and your in like Flynn. You could be the perfect person for the job and if you have Rep/GOP by your name you're screwed.
Example #2:
If the majority is controlled by one party and follows its leaders that puts the majority of congress in the hands of a few people. If those people listen to one person the president, you've thrown out the entire system of checks and balances.
If you have more parties its harder for a few people to influence the majority. It's harder for people to chuck whatever kind of legislation they want on the floor and it gets passed without anyone reading it.
Also there is a growing minority of people that do not like the platform of either party. I don't vote blindly down party lines, I vote for the best person to do the job.
I'm cool with doing away with parties, but when it comes down to the final voting I prefer only two candidates so that the majority declares the victor. If that means I have to afiliate with one out of two parties to ensure a majority, so be it. If a candidate, especially in the primaries, can't maintain a broad enough idea base to encourage 51% or more of particiapants how good could the ideas be?
As for example 2, vote for people who know how to take a stand. I see it all the time. If you voted for someone who tows the line vote them out next time. If the candidate you want is in another party switch.
I agree there should be only two candidates maybe 3, we shouldn't care what party they're from or if they're all from the same party. That's why the Washington State primaries are called "Top Two" only the top two candidates proceed to the general election. We can have 50 parties and only the top two will move on past the primaries.
I don't know if Wash St. is unique but we get a voters pamphlet and our ballots are mail in/absentee. So when you have time, you can sit down with both and go over what the candidates have to say about themselves, without being pressured for time or having to vote with no info in front of you in a tiny booth.
Seriously absentee is the way to go, most states let you sign up for this, I don't know why people wouldn't do it...
I'm really tired of two parties putting crap on the ballot and asking its members to swallow it. Or they put one shinny jewel on the ballot and force you to vote dem or rep down the line. For your rank and file positions including congress the party leaders don't recruit the best and brightest. They recruit people who will be loyal to their party, repeat its rhetoric and do what they are told. That becomes much less important when its harder for one party to grab a majority.
I'm really tired of two parties putting crap on the ballot and asking its members to swallow it. The party leaders don't recruit the best and brightest they recruit people who will be loyal to their party, repeat its rhetoric and do what they are told. That becomes much less important when its harder for one party to grab a majority.
I like that top two primary situation of Washington. As for the combo ballot initiative and add on garbage, I couldn't agree more. To much good stuff goes down because of bad ammendments and bad stuff gets swallowed to get good stuff.
Either way, I think the last few posts answers the question of the thread really well: voting does matter, or else many posts in this thread wouldn't be here.
Replies
[ame]
This reminds me of those ads for Everest college with the guy telling the viewer to get off your ass and go to college. It's really sad if a person needs famous people to tell you to vote in order to decide to, let alone famous people acting condescending.
I do think it is important to vote actually, whether or not it matters. However, Hollywood + Politics mix, pisses me off more then just Politics on its own. As if these people don't have enough going for them already, now they're tyring to make people feel guilty for not voting? [subliminal]You want to be as pretty, rich, funny, as us...better vote![/subliminal]
now to vote. i heard you can get them to mail you a ballet thingy...
+1 Obama
Once im old enough to run for prez, best believe i will be! Upon that time, i will be taking up smoking and drinking publicly at my speeches. Its about time someone has a glass of scotch while tossn the truth down on people.
I want an imperfect person, that does there job well and right. Also one that owns up to there mistakes.
O-BUM-a the terrarrorist! :O
I bet you didn't know!
I thought the comic it was posted in response to was alright, though: http://www.gocomics.com/features/151/feature_items/386307
This year is the first year I've got interest in a candidate. I still wish there was a bit more to get me excited about him, but Obama has my vote just because I don't want McCain/Palin in there.
As Randall said, it's at least worth it for the local items on the ballot too.
and i don't believe everyone has the capacity to vote the right person; like how a lot of people do drugs or commit suicide, some people just don't know whats right for themselves.
A two party system allows for a majority to rule. If you have a three+ party system a minority can rule. If you think things are bad now wait until an 8 party election is held with some true nut job who gets 14% (all one would need to win) and goes medival on our buttocks.
Also its good to register because you can vote on props. Those can really effect you...especially some of the marijuana and gay marriage ones that are going to be showing up in California soon.
In practice, you see that -instead of the American left versus right system- you get all different shades between left and right. When you look at it from afar, what you might noticed at first is that there are some parties that go very far in either direction (nationalist at the far right, communist at the far left, I suppose), but that's only one part of it. The beauty's in the middle-ground, in my opinion.
Well, I say beauty, which is overstating things a bit. Like all political systems, it's not perfect, it's merely better than some of the other ones. And while it does a worse job at representing the extremes (in my experience. Religion hasn't been on the political agenda for a while now, certainly not in American proportions... except for the parties who base their entire ideology upon it, who will only ever be a minority of the government) and will therefore be less appealing to those who are now in systems where their government official is deeply religious, and uses it as a political policy, it does do a better job at representing everyone.
Christ, that was a lot of talking, and not all of it made an equal amount of sense. I hope it was clear enough
It's somewhat odd to be defending the system of my birth-country as well, now that the Belgian government is in pieces, but that's everything to do with the fact that we need to balance two entirely different halves of a bilingual nation.
That's an err.. interesting quote. Not a very nuanced opinion, is it? I wouldn't say drugs are always a bad choice, for one. Everything in moderation, and all that, as well as 'each to his own'. Perhaps you've heard one too many horror story, but remember that alcohol and tobbaco are drugs as well, which would make a LOT of people unfit to vote.
Suicide's a different matter, but often times those who commit suicide aren't thinking entirely clearly. It doesn't reflect on whether they're fit to make a decision on regular occasions, it only reflects on their mindset at that moment (which I believe -given the right conditions- almost anyone could get into) and whether they believe life as they experience it to be worth the bother or not.
Instead of one side giving into the stronger side and going down with claws flailing we might see something more like the actual best idea being put forward. The current system of land mine legislation is pretty much broken unless its a 1 party system, then its pretty much dangerous as we've seen the last 8 years. Hopefully the dems will have a clear enough mandate from the people and will move things in the right direction, but its still a 1 party system, when it works...
But then again, I do love to see issues that affect the lives of millions of people reduced to two different but equally flawed approaches.
Seem to remember something about the founding fathers warning against ever having a system like this? Meh, who pays attention to them.
im not saying people who do drugs are not fit to vote (or the opposite),its not the point. i'm illustrating how people tend to make the bad decisions even when given a better choice. you say drugs can be ok, but would you choose smoking in moderation over not smoking at all, if you can help it?
know what I'm sayin?
Voting in primaries offers plenty of colors if that's all you want, but adding parties in the final election opens the door to minority rule.
We're talking about voting for a US president, not an emperor. Even if a minority did support a particular candidate and he got elected, he still has to work with Congress and abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. And the more parties we have in Congress, the less powerful that President would be.
So far Washington State is the only state that doesn't mandate that you pick a party and stick to it while voting in the primaries. Which means 49 of the 50 states when people go to vote in primaries they are locked to 1 party for selection.
I fail to see how that offers more choices when you're stuck picking red OR blue. It's one color for everything, often one candidate and often not the best person for the job. Your stuck if you really want a red gov and a blue senator.
Thankfully I live in a state that allows the top two candidates move on regardless of party affiliation. Do away with the parties all together. Have the right people for the job, and have them actually work for their money instead of falling back to what party leaders dictate. We need leaders not sheep who happen to be in the right box at the right time.
Example of how the 2 party system is hurting us:
The 2 party system puts beer goggles on voters.
The American people are cleaning house, out with Rep/GOP and in with Dem. If you have Dem by your name you could be a complete douche and your in like Flynn. You could be the perfect person for the job and if you have Rep/GOP by your name you're screwed.
Example #2:
If the majority is controlled by one party and follows its leaders that puts the majority of congress in the hands of a few people. If those people listen to one person the president, you've thrown out the entire system of checks and balances.
If you have more parties its harder for a few people to influence the majority. It's harder for people to chuck whatever kind of legislation they want on the floor and it gets passed without anyone reading it.
Also there is a growing minority of people that do not like the platform of either party. I don't vote blindly down party lines, I vote for the best person to do the job.
Caffeine is also a drug. And I'm an addict.
I'm cool with doing away with parties, but when it comes down to the final voting I prefer only two candidates so that the majority declares the victor. If that means I have to afiliate with one out of two parties to ensure a majority, so be it. If a candidate, especially in the primaries, can't maintain a broad enough idea base to encourage 51% or more of particiapants how good could the ideas be?
As for example 2, vote for people who know how to take a stand. I see it all the time. If you voted for someone who tows the line vote them out next time. If the candidate you want is in another party switch.
I don't know if Wash St. is unique but we get a voters pamphlet and our ballots are mail in/absentee. So when you have time, you can sit down with both and go over what the candidates have to say about themselves, without being pressured for time or having to vote with no info in front of you in a tiny booth.
Seriously absentee is the way to go, most states let you sign up for this, I don't know why people wouldn't do it...
I'm really tired of two parties putting crap on the ballot and asking its members to swallow it. Or they put one shinny jewel on the ballot and force you to vote dem or rep down the line. For your rank and file positions including congress the party leaders don't recruit the best and brightest. They recruit people who will be loyal to their party, repeat its rhetoric and do what they are told. That becomes much less important when its harder for one party to grab a majority.
I like that top two primary situation of Washington. As for the combo ballot initiative and add on garbage, I couldn't agree more. To much good stuff goes down because of bad ammendments and bad stuff gets swallowed to get good stuff.
Either way, I think the last few posts answers the question of the thread really well: voting does matter, or else many posts in this thread wouldn't be here.