If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Philly.com)   A lot more people will biatch about politics as usual than the number who show up to actually vote   (philly.com) divider line 105
    More: Obvious, John Baer, Pennsylvania governor, obstruction of justice, Common Cause, House Speaker, Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans, SEPTA  
•       •       •

1406 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2010 at 3:13 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-01 12:05:12 PM
Of course.

Which people are less respectable than both politicians or the media?

The voting public.
 
2010-11-01 12:31:33 PM
I already voted. Which is a good thing...because my boss called for an after hours mandatory meeting. Way to encourage people to get out there and vote...
 
2010-11-01 12:47:58 PM
Who says getting those people to vote would improve things in any way? Do you really think they're any better informed or any more independently minded than the people already voting? According to surveys of non-voters, it would give an edge to the Democrats if all those people were going to the polls, but apart from that I really don't see where anything would change much.
 
2010-11-01 03:14:07 PM
This is why the GOP won't deliver on its hype this election.
 
2010-11-01 03:14:40 PM
And this is news?
 
2010-11-01 03:15:09 PM
But I posted my anger about politics on my Facebook, I made a DIFFERENCE!!!!!!
 
2010-11-01 03:17:24 PM
Don't blame me, I'm voting for Kodos
 
2010-11-01 03:17:48 PM
mjsee: I already voted. Which is a good thing...because my boss called for an after hours mandatory meeting. Way to encourage people to get out there and vote...

Either it is very important or he knows what he is doing.
 
2010-11-01 03:17:48 PM
Sybarite: Who says getting those people to vote would improve things in any way? Do you really think they're any better informed or any more independently minded than the people already voting? According to surveys of non-voters, it would give an edge to the Democrats if all those people were going to the polls, but apart from that I really don't see where anything would change much.

It might introduce some accountability. But the outcry isn't for non-voters to wander into a polling place on election day and absent-mindedly tick some boxes because the names sound cute--the theory is that if people get motivated to vote by whatever means (a sense of their own duty, a desire for some say in government, to shut Internet robots up) that they will take steps to become better informed and more independently minded.

Well, I did say theory.
 
2010-11-01 03:18:21 PM
"When all is said and done, more is said than done." Truer words were never said. Wonder if he ever did anything about it.

/Already voted
 
2010-11-01 03:18:51 PM
All the candidates in my local election are scum sucking rats and the world would be a better place if they all fell off the face of the Earth.

/not voting
//I already know who will win, my vote doesn't count
 
2010-11-01 03:19:15 PM
I'll be voting tomorrow...and the best part about elections being over are the god awful commercials every 15 seconds will finally end.
 
2010-11-01 03:19:44 PM
HotWingConspiracy: This is why the GOP won't deliver on its hype this election.

Well, no. Unfortunately the GOP base does tend to turn out for midterm elections. Voter indifference hurts the Dems far more than the GOP.

If just 5% more liberal-leaning voters bothered to show up to the polls than pollsters are predicting, the Dems would probably keep control of both houses--and that would still be with total voter turnout that most Western democracies would regard as embarrassing.
 
2010-11-01 03:19:50 PM
But isn't the act of voting the very definition of politics as usual?
 
2010-11-01 03:20:25 PM
mbillips: But isn't the act of voting the very definition of politics as usual?

Not in America.
 
2010-11-01 03:20:33 PM
If you're pissed off with how things are going....vote.

/or just be pissed off and do nothing about it
//go vote tomorrow!
 
2010-11-01 03:20:34 PM
I have a question. There are a couple races where either candidate sucks, if I vote for the ones where there is someone I could put up with running, but don't vote in the ones where I don't like either (or any) of the candidates, do I lose my "right" to biatch about the ones I don't vote in?
 
2010-11-01 03:21:12 PM
Including me, subby. Identifying that we live in a broken, undemocratic society with two major corporate parties that have no significant policy distinctions and several minor parties that have no legitimate chance to ever win is not the same thing as being apathetic.
 
2010-11-01 03:21:18 PM
Sybarite: Who says getting those people to vote would improve things in any way? Do you really think they're any better informed or any more independently minded than the people already voting? According to surveys of non-voters, it would give an edge to the Democrats if all those people were going to the polls, but apart from that I really don't see where anything would change much.

Personally, I think voting should be as difficult as possible. If you have to figuratively crawl over broken glass to cast a ballot, you're strongly motivated and therefore highly likely to be informed.
 
2010-11-01 03:21:24 PM
Ross Perot '12
 
2010-11-01 03:21:52 PM
DoBeDoBeDo: I have a question. There are a couple races where either candidate sucks, if I vote for the ones where there is someone I could put up with running, but don't vote in the ones where I don't like either (or any) of the candidates, do I lose my "right" to biatch about the ones I don't vote in?

That's what write-ins are for
 
2010-11-01 03:21:57 PM
sboyle1020: I'll be voting tomorrow...and the best part about elections being over are the god awful commercials every 15 seconds will finally end.

I approve of this message.
 
2010-11-01 03:22:16 PM
DoBeDoBeDo: I have a question. There are a couple races where either candidate sucks, if I vote for the ones where there is someone I could put up with running, but don't vote in the ones where I don't like either (or any) of the candidates, do I lose my "right" to biatch about the ones I don't vote in?

Yes...If I'm torn between two candidates (or don't like either) I go with the one who looks less creepy.
 
2010-11-01 03:23:24 PM
The amount of spam and physical junk mail I've gotten for this election is ridiculous. Almost makes me not want to vote. Or at the very least, vote for nearly unheard of write-in candidates.
 
2010-11-01 03:24:19 PM
GiveMeFiveDollars: If you're pissed off with how things are going....vote.

/or just be pissed off and do nothing about it
//go vote tomorrow!


Vote or STFU!
 
2010-11-01 03:24:29 PM
, ,
 
2010-11-01 03:24:33 PM
That's always been a blessing and a curse. You want a representative government, but do you want the uninformed, mindless dregs out there voting in large numbers? I'd just as soon have passionate semi informed (even single issue) voters out there with smaller numbers than the basement dwellers and American Idol crowd.

Not to worry though. Pretty much nothing trumps the apathy and laziness of Americans to actually take an hour out of the day to go drive/walk somewhere and vote.
 
2010-11-01 03:24:57 PM
Snot Monster from Outer Space: If just 5% more liberal-leaning voters bothered to show up to the polls than pollsters are predicting, the Dems would probably keep control of both houses--and that would still be with total voter turnout that most Western democracies would regard as embarrassing.

But then they wouldn't be upholding the prime directive of liberalism: "Other people need to work, sacrifice, and build things so I can be lazy and wasteful and spend their money." So if they did make the effort to vote, they'd end up voting centerist at best.
 
2010-11-01 03:26:21 PM
All_Farked_Up: DoBeDoBeDo: I have a question. There are a couple races where either candidate sucks, if I vote for the ones where there is someone I could put up with running, but don't vote in the ones where I don't like either (or any) of the candidates, do I lose my "right" to biatch about the ones I don't vote in?

That's what write-ins are for


Yeah, well now I have to go and do research on people who don't want to run and find one that is eligible.

Crap!
 
2010-11-01 03:26:50 PM
Why does not voting preclude people biatching about the government?

Voting has very little, to almost no effect in modern society. The actual function of government is dominated by an un-elected unionized bureaucracy. Most of the country has been gerrymandered into what are essentially one-party states... and even when it isn't a one-party election, you have a choice between two nearly identical parties who are essentially part of the same political machine.

Voting is irrational. It is essentially a ritual, by which the ruling class can justify an ever increasingly totalitarianism by saying it is the "will of the people".
 
2010-11-01 03:27:22 PM
sboyle1020: DoBeDoBeDo: I have a question. There are a couple races where either candidate sucks, if I vote for the ones where there is someone I could put up with running, but don't vote in the ones where I don't like either (or any) of the candidates, do I lose my "right" to biatch about the ones I don't vote in?

Yes...If I'm torn between two candidates (or don't like either) I go with the one who looks less creepy.


See to me that just wastes a vote AND furthers the stranglehold the 2 party system has. :(
 
2010-11-01 03:28:22 PM
3_Butt_Cheeks: That's always been a blessing and a curse. You want a representative government, but do you want the uninformed, mindless dregs out there voting in large numbers? I'd just as soon have passionate semi informed (even single issue) voters out there with smaller numbers than the basement dwellers and American Idol crowd.

Not to worry though. Pretty much nothing trumps the apathy and laziness of Americans to actually take an hour out of the day to go drive/walk somewhere and vote.


This is true. At the risk of coming across as racist, that's the biggest problem we've had with Philadelphia, escpecially our most recent mayors. We have a large minority population and while there are undoubtedly some who make informed votes, a lot will just vote for someone because they have the same skin color.
 
2010-11-01 03:28:40 PM
Of course. Because if you vote, you have no right to complain:

Link (new window)
 
2010-11-01 03:33:04 PM
Tatterdemalian: Snot Monster from Outer Space: If just 5% more liberal-leaning voters bothered to show up to the polls than pollsters are predicting, the Dems would probably keep control of both houses--and that would still be with total voter turnout that most Western democracies would regard as embarrassing.

But then they wouldn't be upholding the prime directive of liberalism: "Other people need to work, sacrifice, and build things so I can be lazy and wasteful and spend their money." So if they did make the effort to vote, they'd end up voting centerist at best.


2/10
 
2010-11-01 03:36:04 PM
I'm voting early and often.
 
2010-11-01 03:36:13 PM
Tommy Moo: no significant policy distinctions

Democrats: passed the repeal of DADT through the house and almost all voted for repeal of DADT in Senate.

Republicans: Every single republican senator voted against repeal of DADT. Had ONE Republican senator voted for the repeal of DADT it would already be repealed.

Thanks to the Democrats, some 30 million Americans who currently go without health insurance will have insurance once the reform plan fully takes effect in four years. Thanks to Democrats, health insurers will not be able to deny you coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Thanks to Democrats, you will be able to keep your health insurance even if you lose the job through which you received coverage. Thanks to Democrats you can already place your children up to the age of 26 on your health insurance.

Republicans opposed every single part of the above package.

Thanks to Democrats the unemployed are still receiving unemployment insurance in this appalling (Republican built) recession. Republicans voted on several occasions not to extend unemployment payments.

Thanks to a Democratic President and the Democrats in Congress you have two Supreme Court judges who will vote to uphold Roe v. Wade (McCain would unquestionably have appointed justices who would have voted to overturn it); you also have two Supreme Court justices who would vote against California's Prop 8 (again, Republican justices would certainly not) and against DOMA. They will also vote against DADT if that reaches the Supreme Court before it is repealed (I predict that it will be repealed in the lame-duck session after the election).

Thanks do Democrats you have the most significant overhaul of the financial regulatory system in decades. You also have a darling of liberal America charged with setting up the showpiece agency of that legislation (the Consumer Protection Agency), given sweeping powers under the act to institute new regulations.

Yes, the bill could have gone a great deal further--do you think Republicans would have done anything at all?

This pretense that the two parties are identical and that there are "no differences" just because neither party does absolutely everything that you wish is the worst disease of the contemporary American liberal mindset. It is the greatest possible gift you could give to the Republican Party and shows nothing other than liberals' astonishing failure to understand the nature of politics and the inevitably incremental nature of political progress. It also reveals a rather disturbing prioritizing of ideological purity over pragmatic achievement: "Oh sure, 30 million people will be receiving health insurance who otherwise wouldn't have had it: but they won't be getting that in exactly the way that I think is best, so I'd rather they continued to be uninsured."
 
2010-11-01 03:40:46 PM
I don't vote... and never will. At least not until there's real election reform.

Anonymous voting is from a different time. Organizations with anonymous voting are much more inclined to have corruption... why do we think government is different? Hint: it's not different. Politics is corrupt because people want and allow it to be. It's a taxpayer funded daytime soap.

There's absolutely no way to audit the election system in it's current state. Even if election voting machines were hack proof we'd have no way of knowing if people voted once, or 10 times. Casino slot machines need to submit their source code to the state and be certified before use... any upgrade requires re-certification and auditing. not for voting machines in most states.

If you don't want people to know who you support, don't vote. I don't see why public policy needs to be private. Meanwhile if you've ever seen a background check... it's pretty invasive. In many states it's even legal to hire a PI to tail someone if you have the cash. Why is this one thing considered so much more sacred? Your information is regularly sold (often multiple times per day in bundles). The privacy argument is moot.

The system is corrupt, the people who support it are equally corrupt.

No thanks.

Bonus: no jury duty. Another stupid holdover... why the hell is someone basing their decision on what they learned from watching CSI:Miami supposed to be making a legal decision? At least force them to attend a year of law school first. Make it a mandatory enlistment thing. 8 months of school 4 months of service. Then it seems justified and rational. Otherwise it's BS.
 
2010-11-01 03:43:39 PM
Snot Monster from Outer Space: Tommy Moo: no significant policy distinctions

Democrats: passed the repeal of DADT through the house and almost all voted for repeal of DADT in Senate.

Republicans: Every single republican senator voted against repeal of DADT. Had ONE Republican senator voted for the repeal of DADT it would already be repealed.

Thanks to the Democrats, some 30 million Americans who currently go without health insurance will have insurance once the reform plan fully takes effect in four years. Thanks to Democrats, health insurers will not be able to deny you coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Thanks to Democrats, you will be able to keep your health insurance even if you lose the job through which you received coverage. Thanks to Democrats you can already place your children up to the age of 26 on your health insurance.

Republicans opposed every single part of the above package.

Thanks to Democrats the unemployed are still receiving unemployment insurance in this appalling (Republican built) recession. Republicans voted on several occasions not to extend unemployment payments.

Thanks to a Democratic President and the Democrats in Congress you have two Supreme Court judges who will vote to uphold Roe v. Wade (McCain would unquestionably have appointed justices who would have voted to overturn it); you also have two Supreme Court justices who would vote against California's Prop 8 (again, Republican justices would certainly not) and against DOMA. They will also vote against DADT if that reaches the Supreme Court before it is repealed (I predict that it will be repealed in the lame-duck session after the election).

Thanks do Democrats you have the most significant overhaul of the financial regulatory system in decades. You also have a darling of liberal America charged with setting up the showpiece agency of that legislation (the Consumer Protection Agency), given sweeping powers under the act to institute new regulations.

Yes, the bill could have gone a great deal further--do you think Republicans would have done anything at all?

This pretense that the two parties are identical and that there are "no differences" just because neither party does absolutely everything that you wish is the worst disease of the contemporary American liberal mindset. It is the greatest possible gift you could give to the Republican Party and shows nothing other than liberals' astonishing failure to understand the nature of politics and the inevitably incremental nature of political progress. It also reveals a rather disturbing prioritizing of ideological purity over pragmatic achievement: "Oh sure, 30 million people will be receiving health insurance who otherwise wouldn't have had it: but they won't be getting that in exactly the way that I think is best, so I'd rather they continued to be uninsured."


The Democrats gave us a bill that was written wholesale by the health insurance corporations. It forces people to buy a product from a private company without any cost control. Premiums will triple. Book it. Done.

A public option or governmental price fixing were the only things that could morally come with an individual mandate. What we have now is literally worse than what we had before. And the worst part is that the Democrats never really wanted it to be any better. I could have accepted it and still voted for them if they had ever really fought for a public option, but they didn't. Because they never wanted it. Because they like to eat steak with lobbyists. Nothing pisses me off more than a bunch of empty words, and Obama is the worst of them all at this. He is actually leading a federal appeal to have DADT reinstated for Christ's sake! He is only a liberal when he knows that it won't work. Every time he has an opportunity to actually fight for a progressive victory, he just lays down, lets the Republicans roll over him, then shrugs and says "Oh well, guys. We tried."

The hell you did.
 
2010-11-01 03:44:17 PM
DIGITALgimpus: Bonus: no jury duty.

You do realize you'll still be summoned for jury duty even if you're not a registered voter. Unless you don't have a driver's license either...
 
2010-11-01 03:44:40 PM
That's because voting on a national scale doesn't matter. Particularly when it comes to a false dichotomy of political parties.

Local propositions are about the only thing where people can effect change. Even then the jerks in office may overturn it, as happened multiple times with AZ medical marijuana laws.
 
2010-11-01 03:44:42 PM
Tatterdemalian: Snot Monster from Outer Space: If just 5% more liberal-leaning voters bothered to show up to the polls than pollsters are predicting, the Dems would probably keep control of both houses--and that would still be with total voter turnout that most Western democracies would regard as embarrassing.

But then they wouldn't be upholding the prime directive of liberalism: "Other people need to work, sacrifice, and build things so I can be lazy and wasteful and spend their money." So if they did make the effort to vote, they'd end up voting centerist at best.


I thought it was because all the libs were too busy at the campus coffee shop studying Marx and sipping caffe lattes.
 
2010-11-01 03:46:05 PM
DIGITALgimpus: no jury duty

Not true.
At least in Alabama.
 
2010-11-01 03:46:36 PM
Tommy Moo: The Democrats gave us a bill that was written wholesale by the health insurance corporations.

At least they didn't charge retail.
 
2010-11-01 03:46:55 PM
damnit
 
2010-11-01 03:49:30 PM
sboyle1020: You do realize you'll still be summoned for jury duty even if you're not a registered voter. Unless you don't have a driver's license either...

AFAIK not 1 state uses drivers licenses... though they reserve the right.

FWIW: until recently they didn't ask for citizenship. Just papers.

Also: deceased still have licenses in most states, so do people who move out, until they expire.

Most states have terrible records for driving. That's part of why the feds want a national ID program to try and fix it.

Of course if there's a national ID program, I give it 24hrs after launch until someone hacks it and makes a csv available as a torrent. It's inevitable. That DB is worth too much money to keep locked up. For marketers it's gold.
 
2010-11-01 03:51:26 PM
DIGITALgimpus: I don't vote... and never will.

...and that's where I stopped reading.
 
2010-11-01 03:51:41 PM
ocelot: I'm voting early and often.

As long as you have no idea who you're voting for.....
 
2010-11-01 03:51:55 PM
Two (connected) questions:

1. How long has your country been voting for one party or the other?

2. How much better are things after all that time and all that voting?

Now, in light of the answers to those questions, please explain why you think voting is important.
 
2010-11-01 03:53:18 PM
I don't understand why people make this argument. Is it really that difficult to understand that some of the voting public feel that both options (and there are usually only two) are equally as bad for the country?

"So voter, which representative would you like - the one beholden to towing a party line instead of acting with honesty and integrity, or the one beholden to towing a party line instead of acting with honesty and integrity?"
 
2010-11-01 03:56:09 PM
I'd vote this cycle, but I don't live in California.

/Legalize It Now Dangit!
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report