Print

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

[Descan]

Yep. For a lot of people, it's during work hours. :V

[Avis-Mergulus]

Yep. For a lot of people, it's during work hours. :V

I think there are laws in most places about work hours having to budge during elections. I might be wrong, though.

[Lord Shonus]

Yep. For a lot of people, it's during work hours. :V

I think there are laws in most places about work hours having to budge during elections. I might be wrong, though.

Nowhere in the US - instead they set things up so that the polls would be open long enough to easily do it before or after work, not anticipating an era where far too many people have to work 12+ hour days or two jobs just to get by.

[wobbly]

Here it's a saturday which is an obvious solution & even if your away or working you can absentee vote or postal vote. Sounds a little like the US system is set up to make something that's actually fairly easy harder then it needs to be.

[TD1]

Eh. The US government is made up of asses.

And elephants. And some gun wielding maniacs riding said animals.

[Lord Shonus]

Here it's a saturday which is an obvious solution & even if your away or working you can absentee vote or postal vote. Sounds a little like the US system is set up to make something that's actually fairly easy harder then it needs to be.

Thirty years ago, voting was incredibly easy - just stop by the elementary school on your way home from work, or on the way to work and you'd be in and out in a matter of minutes. Nowadays, it's not uncommon for somebody to go to work before the polls open and stay there until after they close, or have to drive thirty or forty minutes in the opposite direction to get to work, or to have to leave one job and rush to another with no time for stopping and voting. There's a growing movement to make Election Day a federally mandated holiday where most businesses would be obligated to close, which is the only solution that would really address the problem - lots of people work all day Saturday, Sunday, or both.

[Orange Wizard]

In NZ, elections are on a Saturday. You can vote from anywhere in the country, including embassies in foriegn countries.
If that's not possible, you can vote in a myriad of other ways, including by post, up to two weeks before the actual election date.
Ultimately, there's no excuse. But we still only get 75% turnout. Probably because all the parties suck.

[Bohandas]

Last fall I found out that most of the people I work with don't vote. Great stuff.

The fact that so few people vote in most places is still quite weird to me. I mean here it's just compulsory, so everyone votes.

That's pretty stupid. How many people are really informed about the issues? I bet it's not everybody.

[Bohandas]

Sounds a little like the US system is set up to make something that's actually fairly easy harder then it needs to be.

From what I've heard, this is basically what 99% of the US government does.

It's the basis of our constitution. "Checks and balances" basically refers to that concspt as applied to the government itself.

[SalmonGod]

Convince me that a candidate is worth voting for on any basis other than being the lesser of two evils, and I will vote for them.  Argument must be based on serious evidence like a track record of verifiable actions aligning with the candidate's proposed platform, and platform must align with more than a small portion of my political interests.  Voting on any other basis is shooting in the dark, and I don't understand why anyone would do it.  I'm rarely aware of a candidate that qualifies for my vote on this basis, but then I'm also not going to dedicate 100% of my free time to researching political candidates in the desperate search for any worth voting for.

[Bohandas]

Ech, as I said, I know one person who did for philosophical reasons. Our ancestors didn't shower or bathe, and they survived just fine.

They also had child mortality rates up around 80%, and many of them suffered from horrible diseases brought about by uncleanliness. (And they spent much more time out in the rain than we do ).

Valid, but not as important to the matter as the fact that they didn't have medicine that actually worked either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope

Note that living a life of pseudo-poverty in the great outdoors doesn't mean not taking care of yourself. You could just as easily bathe in the river for free when you are poor as when you are rich.

Well he was also known for pissing and spitting on things and I think he got arrested for taking a dump in a theater.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Tawa]

Convince me that a candidate is worth voting for on any basis other than being the lesser of two evils, and I will vote for them.  Argument must be based on serious evidence like a track record of verifiable actions aligning with the candidate's proposed platform, and platform must align with more than a small portion of my political interests.  Voting on any other basis is shooting in the dark, and I don't understand why anyone would do it.  I'm rarely aware of a candidate that qualifies for my vote on this basis, but then I'm also not going to dedicate 100% of my free time to researching political candidates in the desperate search for any worth voting for.

I'm assuming this is an argument for not voting? It seems a little perfect solutiony. Your vote is unlikely to fix American politics, but people's lives are still affected by it. If one candidate is more likely to respect my rights as an LGBT person, I'm sure going to take a little time out of my day to try and nudge the government in that direction. A shot in the dark is better than no shot at all.

I was going to say the same thing. Trying to get the lesser of two evils is better than letting the greater of the two win because you did nothing.

[SalmonGod]

Convince me that a candidate is worth voting for on any basis other than being the lesser of two evils, and I will vote for them.  Argument must be based on serious evidence like a track record of verifiable actions aligning with the candidate's proposed platform, and platform must align with more than a small portion of my political interests.  Voting on any other basis is shooting in the dark, and I don't understand why anyone would do it.  I'm rarely aware of a candidate that qualifies for my vote on this basis, but then I'm also not going to dedicate 100% of my free time to researching political candidates in the desperate search for any worth voting for.

I'm assuming this is an argument for not voting? It seems a little perfect solutiony. Your vote is unlikely to fix American politics, but people's lives are still affected by it. If one candidate is more likely to respect my rights as an LGBT person, I'm sure going to take a little time out of my day to try and nudge the government in that direction. A shot in the dark is better than no shot at all.

I was going to say the same thing. Trying to get the lesser of two evils is better than letting the greater of the two win because you did nothing.

In the short term, yes.

In the long term, this just ensures an endless cycle of losing ground.

A shot in the dark is better than no shot at all.

Also, this makes no sense to me.  Like... seriously explain to me how.



I'm not saying a candidate has to be perfect to be worthy of my vote, but they are definitely unworthy of my vote if their representation goes against the majority of my political interests.  Supporting LGBT rights is great and that's one point in favor.  But there are many other things that I care about.  I'm not going to vote for someone who will most likely work against the majority of my interests, because they will also support just one of my interests.  It makes zero sense.

[Bohandas]

Convince me that a candidate is worth voting for on any basis other than being the lesser of two evils, and I will vote for them.  Argument must be based on serious evidence like a track record of verifiable actions aligning with the candidate's proposed platform, and platform must align with more than a small portion of my political interests.  Voting on any other basis is shooting in the dark, and I don't understand why anyone would do it.  I'm rarely aware of a candidate that qualifies for my vote on this basis, but then I'm also not going to dedicate 100% of my free time to researching political candidates in the desperate search for any worth voting for.

I'm assuming this is an argument for not voting? It seems a little perfect solutiony. Your vote is unlikely to fix American politics, but people's lives are still affected by it. If one candidate is more likely to respect my rights as an LGBT person, I'm sure going to take a little time out of my day to try and nudge the government in that direction. A shot in the dark is better than no shot at all.

I was going to say the same thing. Trying to get the lesser of two evils is better than letting the greater of the two win because you did nothing.

In the short term, yes.

In the long term, this just ensures an endless cycle of losing ground.

A shot in the dark is better than no shot at all.

Also, this makes no sense to me.  Like... seriously explain to me how.



I'm not saying a candidate has to be perfect to be worthy of my vote, but they are definitely unworthy of my vote if their representation goes against the majority of my political interests.  Supporting LGBT rights is great and that's one point in favor.  But there are many other things that I care about.  I'm not going to vote for someone who will most likely work against the majority of my interests, because they will also support just one of my interests.  It makes zero sense.

You're not voting for them. You're voting against their competitor.