Electoral College: Closer to being gone than you think

[RJDiogenes]

Considering something a civic duty and legislating compliance are two different things. There must be compelling public interest, in that there would be harm to society otherwise-- if taxes are not collected, society cannot exist. Engagement in the political process is a personal decision. Attendance at town hall meetings, watching debates, or voting on election day cannot-- or at least should not-- be made mandatory. Forcing someone to use their freedom is a fundamental subversion of the concept.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Voting affects all of us - it shapes the government that is charged with our interests and safety. So there's your compelling public interest. If too many people refuse to vote, the wrong candidates get in.

(To put it another way: People like you, who refuse to vote, got Donald Trump elected. Because they didn't stand up for what they believed. So how does it feel? Effectively, @RJDiogenes, you are a Trump supporter. )

Besides, what's the big damn deal about voting anyway? You go and you scribble in little boxes on a piece of paper. If people can't be arsed to do that, then society really has slid.

 

[MacLeod]

Which age group is more likely to vote? Fairly often the older we get the more likely we are to vote. If that is true why don't younger people with the vote go out and vote?

 

[ichab]

Considering something a civic duty and legislating compliance are two different things. There must be compelling public interest, in that there would be harm to society otherwise-- if taxes are not collected, society cannot exist. Engagement in the political process is a personal decision. Attendance at town hall meetings, watching debates, or voting on election day cannot-- or at least should not-- be made mandatory. Forcing someone to use their freedom is a fundamental subversion of the concept.

I agree that it should never be mandatory but I will say that by skipping your civic duty you get the government you deserve and have no right to complain.

 

[urbandefault]

George Washington warned against party loyalty over good judgment. Very few listened to him then, and this is the result.

 

[Jedman67]

For some people who live in rural areas, getting out to vote can be extremely difficult, if poor close to impossible. Before making voting mandatory, make sure all eligible voters have easy access to the polls. I actually voted third party this time around; I knew Gary Johnson didn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of winning, but at least he was engaging the voters.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I realize how difficult this is, given the security considerations involved, but it would make things a LOT easier if Internet voting were possible.

That said: If it's not possible to get people to the polls, just let them vote by mail. Surely THAT's feasible?

 

[Refuge]

Surely you get better representation if you are required to vote. There are other civic duties that are not optional, so what is the big deal about manning up and voting.

 

[Tenacity]

you are a Trump supporter

I voted for him, the better of the two main choices. Although I might have voted for Joe Biden if he had gotten the nomination.

If too many people refuse to vote, the wrong candidates get in.

How does that work?

If people vote in the same percentages, in the same areas of the country, the results would be the same even if fewer people voted.

If that is true why don't younger people with the vote go out and vote?

Many older people view voting as a patriotic duty, some people my age don't believe in the concept of patriotism. There are of course other reasons to vote, but that particular reason is missing for some young people.

I knew Gary Johnson didn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of winning, but at least he was engaging the voters.

You vote your conscious, not for who you think will win.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Voting affects all of us - it shapes the government that is charged with our interests and safety. So there's your compelling public interest. If too many people refuse to vote, the wrong candidates get in.

That's nonsense. The candidates are the candidates regardless of the turnout. People don't vote because there's nobody worth voting for. If you want more people to vote, then you want a system that selects for qualified candidates over weaponized ideologues.

(To put it another way: People like you, who refuse to vote, got Donald Trump elected. Because they didn't stand up for what they believed. So how does it feel? Effectively, @RJDiogenes, you are a Trump supporter. )

No, people like me vote in every election. People like you lie when you have no arguments.

Besides, what's the big damn deal about voting anyway? You go and you scribble in little boxes on a piece of paper. If people can't be arsed to do that, then society really has slid.

Whether it's a big deal or not is irrelevant. People have the right to abstain as much as they have the right to vote.

I agree that it should never be mandatory but I will say that by skipping your civic duty you get the government you deserve and have no right to complain.

Then I guess I have the right to complain.

George Washington warned against party loyalty over good judgment. Very few listened to him then, and this is the result.

True. The Founding Father were generally not big on parties. But it's impossible to stop people from forming them, so we need a system that minimizes party influence by making more of them viable.

 

[MacLeod]

That's nonsense. The candidates are the candidates regardless of the turnout. People don't vote because there's nobody worth voting for. If you want more people to vote, then you want a system that selects for qualified candidates over weaponized ideologues.


No, people like me vote in every election. People like you lie when you have no arguments.


Whether it's a big deal or not is irrelevant. People have the right to abstain as much as they have the right to vote.


Then I guess I have the right to complain.


True. The Founding Father were generally not big on parties. But it's impossible to stop people from forming them, so we need a system that minimizes party influence by making more of them viable.

But how do you determine who is qualifed to run, who sets the criteria?

 

[DimesDan]

But how do you determine who is qualifed to run, who sets the criteria?

Given how unfit for office The Thump is, it would seem anyone can, which as I believe is the American Dream.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I voted for him, the better of the two main choices. Although I might have voted for Joe Biden if he had gotten the nomination.

You do realize Biden and Clinton are pretty much exactly the same policy-wise, right?
He's just saying the same ideas in a deeper voice (which does seem to make a yuuge difference to some people).

 

[Jax]

voted for him, the better of the two main choices. Although I might have voted for Joe Biden if he had gotten the nomination.

What the hell do you make your basis on when choosing a candidate? Biden and Hillary are cut from the same cloth and are POLAR OPPOSITE's to Trump/GOP platform. I will never understand how people can rationalize the ability to lump two politicians together despite them being at different ends of the political scale.



It smacks of that term "low information voter" am sorry it just does.

 

[Jedman67]

I voted for him, the better of the two main choices. Although I might have voted for Joe Biden if he had gotten the nomination.

I don't think Trump was better than Clinton. Just look at whats happening now.
Here's me wishing Cruz had gotten the republican nomination - I don't like the guy and don't think he would have been such a great president, but compared to the current state of affairs?

You vote your conscious, not for who you think will win.

Part of that is trying to get your candidate to win. There is some correlation.

That's nonsense. The candidates are the candidates regardless of the turnout. People don't vote because there's nobody worth voting for. If you want more people to vote, then you want a system that selects for qualified candidates over weaponized ideologues.

I can agree with this; the one flaw in our system is that ANYONE can run, and with the right tools, ANYONE can win. I would hope that in the future the voters themselves can recognize when someone is clearly over their head and knock them from the running.

 

[Tenacity]

Biden and Hillary are cut from the same cloth

It isn't about policies, Biden is a good person, Clinton isn't.

But how do you determine who is qualifed to run, who sets the criteria?

The people.

 

[Jax]

It isn't about policies, Biden is a good person, Clinton isn't.

You know Joe personally do you?

And WTF is Trump to you, if Clinton is a bad person?

 

[ichab]

I realize how difficult this is, given the security considerations involved, but it would make things a LOT easier if Internet voting were possible.

That said: If it's not possible to get people to the polls, just let them vote by mail. Surely THAT's feasible?

A lot of states already have that. Here in Florida you can get your vote by mail ballot up to 45 days before the election.

 

[GabyBee]

Supporting Trump is going to be the new political liability for people in the coming years, just as supporting the Iraq War was post-2004.

 

[MacLeod]

It isn't about policies, Biden is a good person, Clinton isn't.The people.

That was kind of my point it's the people who rightly or wrongly determine if someone is elected to office. But doesn't the system work best when we have an informed electorate, these days quite often it's about the sound bite and that's what some remember rather than looking a bit deeper. Then we also have the character of the person who is seeking office. Call me old fashioned but if a candidate starts boasting about grapping woman (or men) they've instantly lost my vote.