Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most people who don't vote would vote democrat if they exercised their option.
I think it is a good thing that many Americans don't vote. When you are busy smoking pot, drinking, playing video games, or asleep, it is hard to cast a vote.
For the same reason, I am not opposed to early term abortion. Most of those aborted are futrue democrats/criminals.
The people who don't vote would vote for a third party but because the system is broke then our votes don't count. We keep hearing that it does but in reality it doesn't. You would just like us to believe that it does it keep your two party idiots in office every four years.
1. A candidate I really, really support, or
2. A candidate I really, really don't want to see become president.
Well, reason number 1 is hypothetical; every vote since 1972 has been negative. Call me a cynic.
I know that with the electoral system, my vote won't affect the outcome, but I forgot number 3:
3. The moderately discreet "I voted" sticker I get to wear. If it's get your own sticker, I get several, wear them all, and explain to my coworkers that you get a sticker for every time you vote.
1. A candidate I really, really support, or
2. A candidate I really, really don't want to see become president.
Well, reason number 1 is hypothetical; every vote since 1972 has been negative. Call me a cynic.
I know that with the electoral system, my vote won't affect the outcome, but I forgot number 3:
3. The moderately discreet "I voted" sticker I get to wear. If it's get your own sticker, I get several, wear them all, and explain to my coworkers that you get a sticker for every time you vote.
"Would paying people to vote increase voter turnout? The answer is yes, according to a randomized experiment by political scientist Costas Panagopolous, published in The Journal of Politics in 2013. In a 2010 election in California, he arranged to have voters paid various amounts of money to come to the polls. Voters were paid cash at the voting site. An incentive of $2 didn’t make a difference in turnout. An incentive of $10 made some difference, but paying $25 substantially elevated voter turnout."
Perhaps, but (a) there's a much cheaper way to do it; move Election Day to Sunday, when people aren't working; alternatively, make Election Day a national holiday, with penalties for employers who coerce employees to work that day; however, it'll never happen, because (b) both parties and the entire political establishment are dead set against ANY attempt to improve voter turnout in the general population.
If it was how you decribe then a bote in fargo would be worthless , one state with a large population could decide political policy for the whole nation forever
No it wouldn't. States would no longer play a part in the election.
Only popular vote would count. And everyone's input would be equal. As in all other elections, the winner would have the most votes, not loosely-bound promises from some collection of appointed "electors" to act in accordance with how the public voted.
That said, the electoral college perverts presidential voting so that a GOP vote in a blue state or a Dem vote in a red state become meaningless. Presidents should be elected the same as every other office; by popular vote. That way, a vote in Fargo carries the same weight as a vote in NYC and political campaigns would have to be more broadly based than concentrating on a handful of swing states.
It's not meaningless. Are you saying that if everyone voting for the blue candidate in a blue state decided their vote was meaningless and just stayed home that nothing would end up differently?
Perhaps, but (a) there's a much cheaper way to do it; move Election Day to Sunday, when people aren't working; alternatively, make Election Day a national holiday, with penalties for employers who coerce employees to work that day; however, it'll never happen, because (b) both parties and the entire political establishment are dead set against ANY attempt to improve voter turnout in the general population.
If it was how you decribe then a bote in fargo would be worthless , one state with a large population could decide political policy for the whole nation forever
No, a vote in Fargo would have the exact same worth as a vote in New York. Why is this difficult to understand.
"States" don't decide political policy, the people who live in them do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
