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.

(Daily Kos)   Guess which was the last president to gain more votes than the total number of non-voters in his election. No peeking. You peeked didn't you? Shame on you. It's that sort of behavior that disillusions people to the political process   (dailykos.com) divider line 79
    More: Interesting, humans, total numbering, New Statesman, political process, UC Santa Barbara, Walter Mondale, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush  
•       •       •

6720 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Nov 2013 at 3:29 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-04 03:16:11 PM
Genuinely interesting.
 
2013-11-04 03:19:57 PM
I find the answer to be completely soul-satisfying. Had to be him.
 
2013-11-04 03:21:31 PM
Am I wrong to think of TR as being overrated? I just can't get the warmonger side of him out of my head.
 
2013-11-04 03:25:49 PM
That's interesting, I certainly didn't think you'd have to go that far back.

The problem of non-voters (if one accepts that it is indeed a problem) would have no easy or straightforward solution. I mean, the complexity of factors involved would be immense and some of those factors would be incredibly hard to change, e.g. voter apathy to a system perceived to be "rigged".

That said, I don't think mandatory voting is the answer.

Democracy's conundrum.
 
2013-11-04 03:27:13 PM
What's the doing on Kos?  There's no Bush=Hitler so I was confused and thought I was reading The Atlantic or something...
 
2013-11-04 03:27:52 PM
the that
 
2013-11-04 03:28:38 PM

Rev.K:
That said, I don't think mandatory voting is the answer.



Damn straight.

Aint nothing more ironic then being forced to participate in freedom
 
2013-11-04 03:30:17 PM

Rev.K: The problem of non-voters (if one accepts that it is indeed a problem) would have no easy or straightforward solution


Mandatory voting is a very straightforward solution.
 
2013-11-04 03:30:42 PM
In other words, the entire country has become MEH on politics.
 
2013-11-04 03:34:25 PM

Rev.K: That's interesting, I certainly didn't think you'd have to go that far back.

The problem of non-voters (if one accepts that it is indeed a problem) would have no easy or straightforward solution. I mean, the complexity of factors involved would be immense and some of those factors would be incredibly hard to change, e.g. voter apathy to a system perceived to be "rigged".

That said, I don't think mandatory voting is the answer.

Democracy's conundrum.



The two biggest factors contributing to turnout in the most recent presidential elections were swing state status and Election Day voter registration. Of the nine jurisdictions where Election Day registration was an option in 2012, seven placed in the top 20 in overall turnout (including Minnesota which came in at 76.1%).
 
2013-11-04 03:35:42 PM
Did not peek: Reagan or Nixon '68.
 
2013-11-04 03:36:23 PM

DamnYankees: Am I wrong to think of TR as being overrated? I just can't get the warmonger side of him out of my head.


You could probably make the case that every president we've had since him have also been warmongers.

...except for Carter. Motherfarker ran away from a fight with a rabbit.
 
2013-11-04 03:36:33 PM

BunkyBrewman: In other words, the entire country has become MEH on politics.


Not the entire country.

The zealot demographic turns out in great numbers. It's why the GOP caters to haters -- you only need a handful of the working class to vote for the rich if 90% of that handful turns out to vote every time.
 
2013-11-04 03:36:37 PM

DamnYankees: Rev.K: The problem of non-voters (if one accepts that it is indeed a problem) would have no easy or straightforward solution

Mandatory voting is a very straightforward solution.


But how would that work in States that are doing everything possible to disenfranchise people?
 
2013-11-04 03:37:01 PM

MFAWG: Did not peek: Reagan or Nixon '68.


'68 was a really close election. I think you mean '72.
 
2013-11-04 03:37:40 PM

Wendy's Chili: DamnYankees: Am I wrong to think of TR as being overrated? I just can't get the warmonger side of him out of my head.

You could probably make the case that every president we've had since him have also been warmongers.

...except for Carter. Motherfarker ran away from a fight with a rabbit.


You could say that, but itd be inaccurate. TR really was someone who loved war.
 
2013-11-04 03:39:37 PM

Wendy's Chili: DamnYankees: Am I wrong to think of TR as being overrated? I just can't get the warmonger side of him out of my head.

You could probably make the case that every president we've had since him have also been warmongers.

...except for Carter. Motherfarker ran away from a fight with a rabbit.


Mitt Romney's user name has been exposed.

Do you have any idea how big a deal Desert Eagle was at the time?
 
2013-11-04 03:42:12 PM
buyist source.
 
2013-11-04 03:43:20 PM
Jeez, I'm sorry. No more rabbit jokes.
 
2013-11-04 03:44:45 PM
Tax refunds should be tied to whether you voted or not.
 
2013-11-04 03:45:07 PM

DamnYankees: Rev.K: The problem of non-voters (if one accepts that it is indeed a problem) would have no easy or straightforward solution

Mandatory voting is a very straightforward solution.


Then the GOP would need to up the ante on their creativity to come up with some different strategies to suppress Democrat voters other than the voter ID initiatives.
 
2013-11-04 03:48:00 PM
considering how low are turnout rates always areour.

Pet peeve
 
2013-11-04 03:53:21 PM
What if the real conspiracy is there are no conspiracy theories, but just elaborate rumors to create voter apathy?
 
2013-11-04 03:54:51 PM

theknuckler_33: considering how low are our turnout rates always areour. are.

Pet peeve


FTFY
 
2013-11-04 04:02:54 PM

DamnYankees: MFAWG: Did not peek: Reagan or Nixon '68.

'68 was a really close election. I think you mean '72.


Not as close as this one...

1960 Election
36.9% non-voters
31.4% John F. Kennedy
31.3% Richard Nixon
 
2013-11-04 04:06:52 PM
Oh god not a voting thread..... ugh
 
2013-11-04 04:08:37 PM

Rev.K: That's interesting, I certainly didn't think you'd have to go that far back.

The problem of non-voters (if one accepts that it is indeed a problem) would have no easy or straightforward solution. I mean, the complexity of factors involved would be immense and some of those factors would be incredibly hard to change, e.g. voter apathy to a system perceived to be "rigged".

That said, I don't think mandatory voting is the answer.

Democracy's conundrum.


Eh, couldn't we give people numbered "I voted" tickets that could be redeemed for a tax rebate?

It'd probably be easier than making voting mandatory.
 
2013-11-04 04:09:02 PM

cman: Rev.K:
That said, I don't think mandatory voting is the answer.

Damn straight.

Aint nothing more ironic then being forced to participate in freedom


I picture some bizarre outcome here where if this happened the first candidate to endorse non-mandatory elections would then win in a landslide, followed by every election the same promise being made, except never held, because who'd say no to that many votes? It'd be a better wedge issue than abortion.
 
2013-11-04 04:10:44 PM

heavymetal: What if the real conspiracy is there are no conspiracy theories, but just elaborate rumors to create voter apathy?


data3.whicdn.com

How Chomskyesk
 
2013-11-04 04:10:54 PM
I actually guessed father back. I figured it'd be, like, Madison.
 
2013-11-04 04:11:23 PM

bigbadideasinaction: cman: Rev.K:
That said, I don't think mandatory voting is the answer.

Damn straight.

Aint nothing more ironic then being forced to participate in freedom

I picture some bizarre outcome here where if this happened the first candidate to endorse non-mandatory elections would then win in a landslide, followed by every election the same promise being made, except never held, because who'd say no to that many votes? It'd be a better wedge issue than abortion.


Countries that currently have mandatory voting don't have that problem, so I doubt it would be a major issue.
 
2013-11-04 04:12:30 PM
I coulda sworn it was Landslide Lyndon in '64, but apparently even that wasn't enough.  Closest one in the last 100 years though.

I remembered reading that turnout took a massive hit post-Watergate, but I didn't realize it's been up and down like that even before.
 
2013-11-04 04:15:59 PM

unreasonable ass: theknuckler_33: considering how low are our turnout rates always areour. are.

Pet peeve

FTFY


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2013-11-04 04:18:39 PM

FarkedOver: Oh god not a voting thread..... ugh


Just get TF and vote against them all.
 
2013-11-04 04:19:16 PM

cman: Rev.K:
That said, I don't think mandatory voting is the answer.



Damn straight.

Aint nothing more ironic then being forced to participate in freedom


You mean like in a militia or something?
 
2013-11-04 04:19:57 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: FarkedOver: Oh god not a voting thread..... ugh

Just get TF and vote against them all.


I'm just one vote. What can I really do!?
 
2013-11-04 04:22:45 PM
Teddy farking Roosevelt? 

AWESOME
 
2013-11-04 04:24:12 PM

BunkyBrewman: In other words, the entire country has become MEH on politics.


For over a hundred years.  Says a lot.

/Apathy:  the American Way (tm)!!
 
2013-11-04 04:31:34 PM

xanadian: BunkyBrewman: In other words, the entire country has become MEH on politics.

For over a hundred years.  Says a lot.

/Apathy:  the American Way (tm)!!


And yet, the trend has been getting slightly better since the 90s.  But probably not for good reasons.
 
2013-11-04 04:36:52 PM
Considering that a certain percentage of voting age is not eligible then it was possible that Johnson may have outpolled non-voters in 1964.  The others probably weren't even close.
 
2013-11-04 04:37:33 PM
 
2013-11-04 04:38:01 PM
46.4%

That's the 47% Romney was referring to.
 
2013-11-04 04:46:55 PM
Mandatory voting, on Sunday for the win.
 
2013-11-04 04:49:05 PM

FarkedOver: Oh god not a voting thread..... ugh


You sound young.
 
2013-11-04 04:49:22 PM
I had a professor in either government or statistics who pointed out that every time they increased the eligible voting population the turnout went lower. Hell, it might have been psychology 101, because all voting contains a diffusion of responsibility.

upload.wikimedia.org

TR was a rich kid who sought the often fictional glamour of the wild west and heroic combat. This iconic photo was taken in a NYC photo studio, the clothing had been custom made for this, and the knife hilt was custom made by Tiffany & Co in sterling silver.

So, how do we get more turnout? Million dollar lotteries for voting? Hell, maybe we need fewer voters.

Oh, and make every ballot write-in. That'll get some results in out educational system.
 
2013-11-04 05:09:39 PM

BunkyBrewman: In other words, one third to one half of the entire country has become MEH on politics.


FTFY.

Also, that 1/3 to 1/2 will still complain about the guy who got voted in.
 
2013-11-04 05:33:57 PM
I guessed Nixon in 72, I was startled to learn that, fark watergate and the draft, even the great depression couldn't push apathy into second place.
 
2013-11-04 05:54:18 PM
In other words, it's people who actually care who the President is that are abnormal.
 
2013-11-04 06:00:34 PM
I am a proud non-voter.  I can't wait to not vote for governor of Virginia tomorrow.  I'll take no responsibility for any layer of that garbage we call a government.
 
2013-11-04 06:11:03 PM
Makes me wonder how NOTA would fare in some of these elections. Nevada is the only state to list "None of These Candidates" as a ballot option, but it's just a sham. NOTA can't actually win an election in NV- even if an absolute majority vote NOTA, the actual candidate with the most votes still wins. In other words, voting NOTA is the same as casting a blank ballot or just not voting. Instead, if NOTA wins there should be a snap election within a month, at which none of the candidates from the first election are eligible to be on the ballot. Or even better yet- have preferential voting which allows for an instant run-off.
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report