Voter turnout.

[xscoot]

The percentage of people that currently vote is dismal. In Iraq, people go to the polls even though they may die beacause of it, yet over here in America/Canada, we can't get off our lazy asses to excersize one of our most basic rights. The person that is elected should be the choice of the people, not the choice of 20% of the people who are legally allowed to vote. I think we should have Compulsory voting. Not voting, or atleast spoiling your ballot, will bring about fines, community service and eventually imprisonment. Australia and Malta does this, and they get a voter turnout of atleast 95% each time.

What do you think?

[KeithHybrid]

At 10/1/08 04:32 PM, xscoot wrote: I think we should have Compulsory voting. Not voting, or atleast spoiling your ballot, will bring about fines, community service and eventually imprisonment. Australia and Malta does this, and they get a voter turnout of atleast 95% each time.

What do you think?

No. Just because it may be done in another Western country doesn't necessarily make it right. Just as we have the option to exercise our right to vote, we should also retain our option to NOT exercise that right if we don't want to.

Duncha just love the freedom to do as you please?

[Bolo]

Generally, the kinds of people who don't vote, are the kinds of people you wouldn't really want voting, anyways.

[DzGuy]

I'm not sure about the national voting turn-out but there has been a growing percentage of younger people voting this decade. Especially during this current election.

[animehater]

At 10/1/08 07:00 PM, Bolo wrote: Generally, the kinds of people who don't vote, are the kinds of people you wouldn't really want voting, anyways.

Damn right.

[RandomFreak]

Compulsatory voting is a terrible idea. Sure you can make people turn out to the polls if you want to but you can't make them follow the debates or the issues or do any research on the candidates. The result would be people voting on a whim, an impulse and with no real information whatsoever. I would rather the few people who take the time to understand the issues come out and vote voluntarily than force massive amounts of people who flat out don't give a crap to come out and screw evertyhing up.

[Alphabit]

I'm in Australia and I love our government but I'd prefer it if voting wasn't compulsory.

[IllustriousPotentate]

I agree. I think the government should make it mandatory that we exercise our freedoms.

[Korriken]

At 10/3/08 06:11 PM, ThreeStar wrote:

Well said; I don't think the thread really needs to go any further, except to say that we should increase voter turnout by educating our kids about how the country works. Then people would vote because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.

Perhaps this would work, except i remember back in school when they told me "there are only 2 political parties" which is a lie, instead of telling me "there are 2 major parties, a few minor parties, and a handful of single issue parties" The problem is, we only have 2 major parties, and a significant portion of Americans disagree with BOTH parties. The partisanship fighting between the 2 parties has been tearing america apart for decades. United we stand? Yes, except we're divided! if we had 3 or 4, perhaps even 5 major parties, America's voice could be truly heard. except, this would hurt the 2 titans of our government so they're gonna fight that idea tooth and nail. and WHO has their backs? the media and large corporations. Ever seen a bob barr advertisement on tv? I haven't.

Personally, I'm not voting either way. I don't trust either candidate. I used to like bob barr, until he started taking cheap shots like so.

[marchohare]

At 10/1/08 07:00 PM, Bolo wrote: Generally, the kinds of people who don't vote, are the kinds of people you wouldn't really want voting, anyways.

At 10/1/08 07:15 PM, animehater wrote: Damn right.

You might think it's "damn right"... if you're a fascist.

Korriken hit the nail on the head: many of us--perhaps most--who don't vote did not make that decision out of apathy. We did so because we recognized that our vote comes down to a choice between Sold-Out Whore A and Sold-Out Whore B: candidates who want to destroy individual liberty and only disagree about which freedoms to take away first. If you have a strong preference in any national election, chances are your understanding of politics goes no deeper than cheering for your own team, Republicrat or Demolican, it makes no difference. The two major parties are just flip-sides of the same corrupt coin.

I will not vote against a candidate. At this point in U.S. history, it's like deciding whether you want to be hung or shot. Those who don't recognize that our elected officials do not work for the people, but for global corporations that buy their tickets into office, are so politically unaware that they have no business being part of the process.

I'm from Oklahoma. I left the state when it removed 3rd party candidates from the ballot--and yes, that was a major reason for seeking greener pastures. If you can't see how the game is rigged, with the corporate-owned Mainstream Media ignoring anyone who truly believes in smaller government and an end to corporate welfare, and 3rd party candidates who might upset the hegemony of the Big Two excluded, I feel sorry for you. You're not only asleep, you're brain dead.

Of course I am opposed to mandatory voting--anyone with the sense God gave a goose would be--but it's wrong to assume that people who don't vote aren't interested.

Most of us are very interested. We've simply recognized the pure and simple fact that the game is rigged and there is nobody worth voting for.

[marchohare]

At 10/4/08 01:40 PM, SevenSeize wrote: Voting for someone just because of their race or gender and not paying attention to any other fucking thing about them is retarded.

I agree with you of course, although I've also heard people say they're voting for McCain because his running mate is a woman.

But I do have to wonder... why is a teacher using a word like "retarded"? I know it's standard procedure on this BBS, but considering the rest of your post it sounded kind of out of place.

[redzone]

At 10/1/08 04:32 PM, xscoot wrote: What do you think?

Well in America, many people dont want to vote or anything because the poloticians are just complete idiots and many dont feel that their vote would matter even if they did vote.

But I know many people that are registering just so they can vote for Obama. He is getting more people wanting to vote.

it could aslo be because Bush was so horrible that now people want to vote and take controle so that we dont have another Bush..(McCain). Ahem....

[Memorize]

It might go up 1% this year considering that the Democrats have up'd their efforts to get:

-Murderers to vote.
-Rapists to vote.
-Child abusers to vote.
-People who can't verify their ID to vote.
-Manipulating battleground residency/voting laws to vote.

[RedDreadSky]

At 10/4/08 03:24 PM, Memorize wrote: It might go up 1% this year considering that the Democrats have up'd their efforts to get:

-Murderers to vote.

I'd love to see unbiased proof of this....

-Rapists to vote.

and ths...

-Child abusers to vote.

and this...

-People who can't verify their ID to vote.

and this...

-Manipulating battleground residency/voting laws to vote.

and this.
Remember, they key word is 'unbiased.'

[Jizzlebang]

At 10/4/08 03:24 PM, Memorize wrote: It might go up 1% this year considering that the Democrats have up'd their efforts to get:

I can never tell if you are trolling or if you serious. Either way, you're able to do so by looking like a really petty person.

[Dromedary]

People who can't be arsed to do it obviously aren't interested with the Goverment, and it's much better that they are staying at home eating chips than Voting Obama, Just because they can, yet have no opinion on it, right?

[animehater]

At 10/4/08 12:55 PM, marchohare wrote: You might think it's "damn right"... if you're a fascist.

Fascist? Are you kidding me with that cliche shit?

[Memorize]

At 10/4/08 05:37 PM, RedDreadSky wrote:

I'd love to see unbiased proof of this....

I give you the state of Maine.

Twenty states offer a less harsh form of the restriction barring only those in prison, on parole, or probation from voting. Five states, including Colorado prevent felons from voting while on parole or in prison. Currently, in Colorado alone almost 30,000 people are incarcerated. While another thirteen states allow felons to vote after their release from prison there are only two states in the nation, Maine and Vermont that do not revoke a felon's right to vote at any time.

Both solidly liberal and Democrat states.

-People who can't verify their ID to vote.

and this...

Say hello to Indiana.

Upheld by courts to be required to show some form of ID to vote.

Liberals and Democrats argument? "But the poor and minorities are less likely to have a form of ID".

Translation: They're voting bloc are more frequent to NOT have a form of ID and they're worried about losing votes.

-Manipulating battleground residency/voting laws to vote.

and this.

Volunteers who pick up 'new', 'unregistered' voters (including those not likely to vote) to take them to get registered for the first time actively telling them to vote for Obama on the way to the polls: Linky

Above link is video of one such volunteer admitting she is telling them who to vote for.

Jennifer Brunner 'interpreting' her own law to allow for unregistered voters to register and vote on the same day for absentee ballots: More link

Upheld by courts, however, before then it was generally considered that you must be registered for at least 30 days before obtaining an absentee ballot. Her argument stated that their votes aren't "really" counted until Nov. 4th, so when they cast their "early vote", it's about 1 month before their votes are actually counted (which she claims is that 30 days).

If that's the case then what the hell is the point of having your vote in early?

lol, what cheaters.

[marchohare]

At 10/4/08 06:56 PM, animehater wrote: Fascist? Are you kidding me with that cliche shit?

LOL! Oh no, absolutely not. Does this fit you?

"...a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation (and often race) above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Of course it's chichéd, because here in post-postmodern Amerika it's such a popular political philosophy. I have no problem calling a fascist a fascist. If such wastes of space don't like their name, too bad. Fascist is a perfectly good word, so if the shoe fits, wear it.