You could say the same thing about McCain and black people.

Though he's probably less likely to be successful.

I think we'd all be better off if they could be convinced to not vote, anyway.

Churchill2004: You could say the same thing about McCain and black people any election.

The key to winning is often to make the other guy's base stay home.

Churchill2004: You could say the same thing about McCain and black people.

Though he's probably less likely to be successful.

If McCain could make sure there's a nationwide carwash special on Election Day, he might have a chance.

Yanks_RSJ: If McCain could make sure there's a nationwide carwash special on Election Day, he might have a chance.

Unless the Democrats can get KFC to run an Election Day "Buy one, get one free" special for people with an "I voted" sticker.

/mmmm... chicken

abb3w: Unless the Democrats can get KFC to run an Election Day "Buy one, get one free" special for people with an "I voted" sticker.

Yeah, but then Republicans could open a free Kool-Aid stand that is handing out counterfeit "I voted" stickers.

/ok, that's the last one

You're farking kidding right? *reads article* This is what's wrong with this country. NO ONE should ever be discouraged from voting. If everyone got off their lazy asses and voted the country would be in a much more neutral place because as it is only wackjob far left and right wing nuts and me seem to vote.

Gwendolyn: You're farking kidding right? *reads article* This is what's wrong with this country. NO ONE should ever be discouraged from voting. If everyone got off their lazy asses and voted the country would be in a much more neutral place because as it is only wackjob far left and right wing nuts and me seem to vote.

Shhhh.... you'll upset the children.

Gwendolyn: This is what's wrong with this country. NO ONE should ever be discouraged from voting.

No, this is what's wrong with this county. Uninformed idiots SHOULDN'T be encouraged to vote.

If you have to be reminded to vote, or rewarded by stupid trinkets, chances are you're such a moron we're better off not benefiting from your judgment.

I'd gladly take 10% voter turnout if that 10% was actually well-informed. The idea isn't to just get as many possible to vote, it's to get the best people possible chosen. That's why the President and Senate weren't originally elected- because as often as not, the mob selects idiots.

It's the sad truth of modern politics. You don't win by convincing people to vote for you, you win by convincing people not to vote for your opponent. That's why you see so many attack ads, campaign reps talking about phony scandals, etc. To try to convince people to just not bother.

The last thing most politicians want is people voting. All their strategy is focused on getting the other side to not vote a little bit more.

Evangelicals -smevangelicals... the real power is in the software.

Because People in power are Stupid: Evangelicals -smevangelicals... the real power is in the software.

I see that's from 2006. Maybe you need to update the image, considering what happened at that election.

After the fantastic job they did in supporting a "ggod ol' boy" who ironically doesn't even share any of their principles, maybe they SHOULD take a cold hard look at staying home. Obviously they're easily fooled. But then, they ARE evangelicals... if you'll buy that sky wizard horseshiat, you'll swallow anything.

Gwendolyn: You're farking kidding right? *reads article* This is what's wrong with this country. NO ONE should ever be discouraged from voting. If everyone got off their lazy asses and voted the country would be in a much more neutral place because as it is only wackjob far left and right wing nuts and me seem to vote.

In the 2004 election voter 24% of voters were self identified independents.

Churchill2004
I'd gladly take 10% voter turnout if that 10% was actually well-informed. The idea isn't to just get as many possible to vote, it's to get the best people possible chosen. That's why the President and Senate weren't originally elected- because as often as not, the mob selects idiots.

You make soooo much sense. The government should enforce people to partake in mandatory non-bias test before voting for a candidate. The test should be easy, and you'd only need a basic understanding of the issues to pass it. People vote based on what they see. "Hey look, McCain is an old guy" so 65+ vote for him. "Hey, Barack Obama is black!" so 95%+ vote for him. Not the way the system should work.

Churchill2004: he idea isn't to just get as many possible to vote, it's to get the best people possible chosen.

No, it's not. Where on earth do you get that idea from?

cameroncrazy1984:
I see that's from 2006. Maybe you need to update the image, considering what happened at that election.

That's the address.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - W. Churchill

FTFA: As described by D. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd G. Shields in their book

LOL WUT

You know what other black politician discouraged people from voting for anyone else?

Disenfranchised felons cannot vote

anal brazil men: You know what other black politician discouraged people from voting for anyone else?

Hitler in blackface?

petco34:
In the 2004 election voter 24% of voters were self identified independents.

Which means 76% were not.

petco34: The government should enforce people to partake in mandatory non-bias test before voting for a candidate.

Way too much potential for abuse, and no court in the country would allow that to stand.

It'd be better if instead of just encouraging people to show up and vote, we encouraged people to actually be informed and actively disencouraged people from voting if they didn't know what the hell they're talking about. The peer pressure should punish people who show up and vote when they're uninformed, not reward them.

Some kind of "If you're an idiot, stay home" ad campaign, but phrased nicer.

Obdicut: No, it's not. Where on earth do you get that idea from?

This guys who wrote the owner's manual for this unholy mess we call America.

towatchoverme: The key to winning is often to make the other guy's base stay home.

This is exactly what's been happening today in Zimbabwe.

I am reminded of my favorite Mencken quote, paraphrased because I don't have it handy. "Ahh Democracy. That misguided belief that the public knows what it wants, and deserves to get it good and hard."

Gwendolyn: If everyone got off their lazy asses and voted the country would be in a much more neutral place because as it is only wackjob far left and right wing nuts and me seem to vote.

Gotta disagree. Of those who don't vote, most of them are also probably not that smart. I think most smart people tend to vote.

More dumb people means more lowest-common-denominator political tactics and less focus on real issues.

downstairs: More dumb people means more lowest-common-denominator political tactics and less focus on real issues


Which is why increased "democratization", like direct elections for Senate and President, have done absolutely nothing to actually make our government work better.

Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

Churchill2004: This guys who wrote the owner's manual for this unholy mess we call America.

Nicely pithy. But your assertion still makes no sense; you're saying that the "best" people to lead are chosen through the democratic process. Either that is simply A = A (People are chosen through the democratic process, they must be the best for it because they were chosen through the democratic process) or are you somehow alleging that the democratic process produces the best possible leaders from the population, which is pretty obviously false.

I guess you could also be asserting that the democratic selection process is the best out of all available options for choosing leaders, but that still falls prey to the (from a perspective of a democratic country) limit.

The founding fathers believed in democracy not for utilitarian reasons, but because they thought it was the only good ethical and moral system for choosing leaders.

downstairs: Gotta disagree. Of those who don't vote, most of them are also probably not that smart. I think most smart people tend to vote.

More dumb people means more lowest-common-denominator political tactics and less focus on real issues.

No old people vote. Ask working middle class Americans and most of them are too busy. Lord knows everyone in my offices were. It was usualy and one or two other people that bothered to vote. Although everyone liked to biatch.

Right now all levels of education (excluding high school drop outs) are as likely to vote. 2004 Census Stuff (new window) Everyone should vote. I believe it should be mandatory like paying taxes. You vote or you don't get to reap the benefits of living in a democracy.

I really hope that person above was joking about making people take a test. We used to do that remember? A little thing called the Voting Rights Act made that illegal. As he signed it Johnson said, "The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men." I'm not a huge Johnson fan but his speech writer was dead on.

Obdicut: you're saying that the "best" people to lead are chosen through the democratic process

No, I'm saying that idea was that the best people are chosen through a process that includes, for some offices, direct elections, indirect elections for other offices, and appointment for some other offices.



Obdicut: Either that is simply A = A (People are chosen through the democratic process, they must be the best for it because they were chosen through the democratic process) or are you somehow alleging that the democratic process produces the best possible leaders from the population, which is pretty obviously false

That's not what I'm saying. The super-democratic status quo, where every one is supposed to go vote for every office as part of some mindless civic ritual, is a nightmare. That's why originally the idea was that the House would be directly elected, the Senate appointed to be the voice of the state governments (thus the equal representation, which makes no sense for elected Senators), and the President would be elected by a special Electoral College. That way you've got a balance, and not every one is directly answerable to the whims of popular opinion.

Obdicut: The founding fathers believed in democracy not for utilitarian reasons, but because they thought it was the only good ethical and moral system for choosing leaders

The found fathers didn't "believe in democracy". In fact they despised the term- they associated it with tyranny of the majority of the sort that had ruled ancient Athens. Only later would the term "democracy" be broadened to include democracy as we know it.

No, they were "republicans", a part of which included democratic elections and consent of the governed, but another part of which included conscious efforts to restrain the will of the majority through institutional hurdles.

Churchill2004: The found fathers didn't "believe in democracy". In fact they despised the term- they associated it with tyranny of the majority of the sort that had ruled ancient Athens. Only later would the term "democracy" be broadened to include democracy as we know it.

No, they were "republicans", a part of which included democratic elections and consent of the governed, but another part of which included conscious efforts to restrain the will of the majority through institutional hurdles.

Sure. Semantical burdens aside, as democracy as currently used in the world-- meaning a representative republic-- they liked it.

Churchill2004: No, I'm saying that idea was that the best people are chosen through a process that includes, for some offices, direct elections, indirect elections for other offices, and appointment for some other offices.

Best by what criteria, is my point. Are they best by the standards of the Confucian system? Are you alleging that the leaders produced by democracy are actually the best possible leaders that could be chosen from the population at any given time-- that whoever is elected is the best possible person for that job?


And are you making the argument that the founding fathers set up our electoral process with the idea that it would produce the best leaders (either subjective or objectively), rather than because it was a system that they felt was ethically fair to the citizenry?

Obdicut: Sure. Semantical burdens aside, as democracy as currently used in the world-- meaning a representative republic-- they liked it

Yeah, but what they envisioned was significantly less "democratic" than what we have now, insofar as there were supposed to be a lot fewer offices elected by the people.

Obdicut: Are you alleging that the leaders produced by democracy are actually the best possible leaders that could be chosen from the population at any given time-- that whoever is elected is the best possible person for that job?

Of course not, and I don't see your point.

Of course no system is going to always going to get the best. But the method of selection can have a huge impact on what the final odds are.

Obdicut: And are you making the argument that the founding fathers set up our electoral process with the idea that it would produce the best leaders (either subjective or objectively), rather than because it was a system that they felt was ethically fair to the citizenry?

They believed both.

I suggest you go read The Federalist. It deals with this subject rather explicitly and in-depth.

Churchill2004: Of course not, and I don't see your point.

So what do you mean by "best"? That's my point.


Churchill2004: They believed both.

I suggest you go read The Federalist. It deals with this subject rather explicitly and in-depth.

I've read it. They believe that the leaders produced would be the best leaders for a representative republic. They specifically believed that it would not produce Napoleons, Ghengis Khans, and Caesers. That was pretty damn vital to them, actually.

Gwendolyn: You're farking kidding right? *reads article* This is what's wrong with this country. NO ONE should ever be discouraged from voting. If everyone got off their lazy asses and voted the country would be in a much more neutral place because as it is only wackjob far left and right wing nuts and me seem to vote.

I didn't know that I was Gwendolyn. Are all the Fark independents the same person?

Wouldn't it just make our Democracy more efficient if American Idol and Dancing With the Stars ran all-day live marathon specials on election day?

Obdicut: So what do you mean by "best"?

Obviously that's a subjective judgment, but ideally you want people who faithfully execute the duties of the office and nothing more.

Obdicut: I've read it. They believe that the leaders produced would be the best leaders for a representative republic. They specifically believed that it would not produce Napoleons, Ghengis Khans, and Caesers. That was pretty damn vital to them, actually.

That's exactly my point. They knew that direct elections for high office- particularly for chief executive- are prone to elect demagouges who sway the masses. And people like that are a lot more likely to be Napoleons, Genghis Khans, Ceasers, etc.

For legitimacy, obviously you've got to have elections, and the direct representatives have to constitute a significant chunk of the government machinery. And the Founders were adamant that the people responsible for taxation and the budget had to be elected. However, they also knew that elections were generally ill-suited for higher office outside of basic legislatures. That's why the Senate (which is not a purely legislative body like the House), President, and Federal judiciary were all indirectly elected or appointed. Thus demagogues got kept out of those offices and in the House, where a fiery vox populi was appropriate.

towatchoverme: Churchill2004: You could say the same thing about McCain and black people any election.

The key to winning is often to make the other guy's base stay home.

Obama doesn't have to do anything, McCain is already doing a great job of convincing his base to stay home.

Hooray duopoly!

cameroncrazy1984: Because People in power are Stupid: Evangelicals -smevangelicals... the real power is in the software.

I see that's from 2006. Maybe you need to update the image, considering what happened at that election.

Well what did happen? Did a bunch of people win, who subsequently were blamed for not instantly changing all the damage done over the prior 6 years?
Geez, who benefited from that?

Because nothing says "democracy" like encouraging people not to vote.

Churchill2004: Some kind of "If you're an idiot, stay home" ad campaign, but phrased nicer.

That's awesome. Where do I go to vote for this?

Approves.

Staying at home on election day is a bad idea. Puffy will still kill you. Kind of like Mugabe.

I think you all are missing the point of the article. It's not about encouraging people not to vote, it's about alleviating the fears of people who would have run out just to vote against Obama (as opposed to voting because they really want McCain). These are the people who aren't all that enthused about McCain, and who would probably sit this election out, if not for people trying to convince them that Obama wants to ban Christianity (that e-mail is going around) and that he's a scary far-left radical. Obama may not be able to convince them to actually get out and pull the lever to vote for him, but if he can convince them that his election is not the end of the world, that's half the battle already.

Churchill2004: Some kind of "If you're an idiot, stay home" ad campaign, but phrased nicer.

That's awesome. Where do I go to vote for this?

The question is 'when' do you go. About Andrew Jackson's time, I think.

/ducks

in the dark hallways of our old state house, we called it "Mondaling." if i keep your side from getting excited about its candidate, then my side doesn't need to work nearly as hard. the idea being that instead of going negative, and risking my guy's positive image, by publicizing a few quotes that make the other guy look bad, i can publicize hundreds of quotes that make the other guy look bland. Reagan's team basically perfected this (hence the name)... and Clinton did it beautifully in '96.

rynthetyn: It's not about encouraging people not to vote, it's about alleviating the fears of people who would have run out just to vote against Obama (as opposed to voting because they really want McCain).

Obvious kool-aide drinking apologist are obvious.

rynthetyn: I think you all are missing the point of the article. It's not about encouraging people not to vote, it's about alleviating the fears of people who would have run out just to vote against Obama (as opposed to voting because they really want McCain). These are the people who aren't all that enthused about McCain, and who would probably sit this election out, if not for people trying to convince them that Obama wants to ban Christianity (that e-mail is going around) and that he's a scary far-left radical. Obama may not be able to convince them to actually get out and pull the lever to vote for him, but if he can convince them that his election is not the end of the world, that's half the battle already.

Well put.

fark evangelicals, if you honestly claim to believe that the Bible is fundamentally true in all aspects you shouldn't just be barred from voting, you should be put in a mental hospital.

Churchill2004: Obviously that's a subjective judgment, but ideally you want people who faithfully execute the duties of the office and nothing more.

How does that equate to "best", in any way?


Churchill2004: That's exactly my point. They knew that direct elections for high office- particularly for chief executive- are prone to elect demagouges who sway the masses. And people like that are a lot more likely to be Napoleons, Genghis Khans, Ceasers, etc.

I don't think you mean 'demagogue'. None of those leaders were demagogues.

My point is: Ghengis Khan could rightly be called the greatest leader the world has ever seen. He is certainly one of the greatest-- and I'm not referring to his martial accomplishments, though impressive. You've allowed that the US system is set up specifically to prevent Khan-like leaders from emerging.

The corollary of that, which you are either not understanding or ignoring, is that the system of our government is set up not on a pragmatic ideal of producing the best leaders, but as a contract between citizenry and government; it is based on the idea of representation-- if you take Hamilton's fully patronizing interpretation, it is representation even for those too stupid or ignorant to participate, because the representatives act in their interests despite their inability to recognize or express their interests. If you take the more Jeffersonian attitude, all citizens should have a voice in choosing their representatives.

The overall point being: Those elected to office in the US are supposed to represent their constituency. If 90% don't vote, as you are alleging a desire for on your part, the representative still has a duty to represent those 90% to the best of their ability, be they ever so ignorant; the representative is supposed to actually represent their desires and interests.

If you are arguing that 10% of the population would be more successful at choosing people who were competent to do that, I'd be very surprised at that allegation; the obvious result would seem to be that those 10% would elect someone who was aligned with their interests, not the interests of the other 90%.