Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thecard]

Voter Apathy is the true enemy, not Conservatism.

Voting Crime Squad?

[EuchreJack]

You can usually counter voter apathy by making voting mandatory on penalty of fine. Even a small fine. People will go out of their way to not lose money. In fact, it's an even better idea since it will provoke the poor to vote more than anyone else.

I speculate that the whole reason the US doesn't do this is because of the rampant uncertainty. 

Think about it: Who makes the laws? The people already elected under the old system. 
Who favors the old system? The people already elected under the old system.

Nobody already elected will risk their jobs by implementing a new voting system.  Plus, those forced to vote might very well take their vengence at being dragged out of their homes to the polls out upon those responsible, further discouraging the current representatives from such action.

Besides, in the US, more people don't vote than do vote.  Therefore, the majority has already spoken against mandatory voting.

Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not a bad idea, but I doubt it will occur in the US.

Even thought this is a major derail, I find it a particularly interesting one.

Back on topic, do liberals in hospital or otherwise inactive lose heat?

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Back on topic, do liberals in hospital or otherwise inactive lose heat?

Hadn't thought about this before, but since I made heat deduction take place at the moment that liberals increase the heat of their current location, inactive liberals do not lose heat.

[Thecard]

I'm pretty sure more people vote than not, but I may have gotten it from outdated statistics.

[Wrex]

I'm pretty sure more people vote than not, but I may have gotten it from outdated statistics.

Most people in the U.S no longer vote.

[Thecard]

I'm pretty sure more people vote than not, but I may have gotten it from outdated statistics.

Most people in the U.S no longer vote.

Huh. 
I know many don't like either of the current candidates, but honestly, I find it hard to believe that.  Do you have any sources you can provide?  I would really like to know more.

[Sheb]

In 2004 and 2008, voter turnout reach historical records. Over 60% of eligible Americans voted. Turnout is usually much lower for other elections.

[Thecard]

In 2004 and 2008, voter turnout reach historical records. Over 60% of eligible Americans voted. Turnout is usually much lower for other elections.

Is that supporting Wrex's statement?  Except for 1924, I'm not seeing a majority of Americans not voting.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

In 2004 and 2008, voter turnout reach historical records. Over 60% of eligible Americans voted. Turnout is usually much lower for other elections.

Is that supporting Wrex's statement?  Except for 1924, I'm not seeing a majority of Americans not voting.

An adjusted statement might say that the majority of eligible Americans do not vote if a Presidential candidate isn't on the ballot.

[EuchreJack]

Ok, I was wrong.  A simple majority does vote in all presidential elections (since 1928, at least).

But, since I don't live in a "Swing State", I probably won't bother to vote.  Because in my home state, the electorial votes for the president have already been decided.

EDIT: On the other hand, there is a Congressional seat that is heavily contested, so that might be fun.

[Funk]

i dont live the u.s. but this does seam like a crazy system ,The Trouble with the Electoral College
but we have are own system with its flawsThe Problems with First Past the Post Voting

[Thecard]

Yeah, it kind of is a screwed up system, and Jack, I see what you mean, and yeah, a lot of people don't vote because they don't think it's important or it's been decided.  I just wasn't sure what Sheb had meant.

[EuchreJack]

Honestly, my biggest problem with the Electorial College isn't the fact that votes are not proportional to population, but rather that the states are mostly (Nebraska excluded) winner-take-all. 

If a presidential candidate were instead only rewarded their percentage of the vote in the state, it would still protect the small states yet actually make the individual votes matter.  For example, under my proposed system, if in hypothetical State X with 9 electorial votes, Candidate A wins 2/3 of the votes and Candidate B wins 1/3 of the votes, then Candidate A would get 6 electorial votes and Candidate B would get 3 electorial votes, and it would acknowledge that not everybody in State X supported Candidate A, which is what I (and I imagine many voters) really care about: Acknowledgement of individual choice.

Before I continue bashing the Electorial College, I should probably explain the REAL reason for the Electorial College: It's SUPPOSE to hinder the popular vote.

See, the founding fathers of the United States, a few dozen of the richest and most powerful people in the Colonies at the time, were afraid of the general population being swayed into giving up their rights to another tyrant through a straight election.  So, they set up the Electorial College so that even if a charismatic sychopath won the popular vote, somebody could step up and stop them.  So, the Electorial College theoretically should stop Hitler from becoming President in the US.  Anybody short of that...not so much.

And despite the totally reprehensable things that some Presidents have done (believe me, I know the sins of my country's forefathers), nobody crossed that line (and those who came close gave no such indications prior to election).

[misko27]

I'm Conservative and I support legalizing all sorts of machine guns and flamethrowers.  I'm certain I can find quite a few Conservatives that think the same.

Yes, I realize I'm interupting a conversation that has moved far from the topic, but I must protest. Flamethrowers are legal for private ownership by federal law.

In the United States, private ownership of a flamethrower is not restricted by federal law, but is restricted in some states, such as California, by state laws (cf. California Health and Welfare Codes 12750–12761, Flamethrowing Devices).[31]

On Topic: Yes, the electoral cllege does end up having unintended consequences, my liberal state emans I have literally no presidential election power, while people in certain counties in florida have huge amounts, since, of course, a slight majority wins.

Eventually, You can have it so that the slightest of all possible majorities, or even minortities, can win elections. Observe: A county has mostly liberals and a few conservatives. This gives a fewer number of liberals more power over their county, while the conservatives have no power at all. Conversely, a county where there are no liberals at all is also weak, becuase all the conservatives there can't and won't participate beyond ensuring a conservative win.

Basically, you can dilute the number of the opposing faction among counties you'll win, and stuff them in counties you were going to lose anyway, and manage to win.

[EuchreJack]

I'm Conservative and I support legalizing all sorts of machine guns and flamethrowers.  I'm certain I can find quite a few Conservatives that think the same.

Yes, I realize I'm interupting a conversation that has moved far from the topic, but I must protest. Flamethrowers are legal for private ownership by federal law.

In the United States, private ownership of a flamethrower is not restricted by federal law, but is restricted in some states, such as California, by state laws (cf. California Health and Welfare Codes 12750–12761, Flamethrowing Devices).[31]

And I thank you dearly for that interrupt.  Knowing that somehow, somewhere in the US, I too can own a flamethrower has made my day.

I've also seen (on the internet) some guy who charges people $50 to fire a modern Gattling Gun in the southern USA, so machine guns are somehow, somewhere, also legal.  What a country!