voting 2012

#1

snack_attack

0 Frags – +

yes on 36
stein for president

#2

VickM

6 Frags – +

Medical Marijuana :)

#3

prestige

9 Frags – +

writing in ron paul, only the truly brave witll do this

#4

Stanley

13 Frags – +

kony 2012

#5

disengage

9 Frags – +

COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM COUPONBUG.COM

#6

mattertea

4 Frags – +

vote YES on 37 to label Genetically Modified Organisms in food if you live in California.

Also vote NO on WAR by not voting for Republican or Democrat in the Presidential Election.

To those of you who are into Ron Paul, Check out Gary Johnson he is the Libertarian Candidate.

vote YES on 37 to label Genetically Modified Organisms in food if you live in California.

Also vote NO on WAR by not voting for Republican or Democrat in the Presidential Election.

To those of you who are into Ron Paul, Check out Gary Johnson he is the Libertarian Candidate.

#7

Abramelin

0 Frags – +

justin amash 4 congress

#8

crumpet

3 Frags – +

voting is endorsing the system

#9

swiper

-3 Frags – +

No point in voting unless you're in the minority of areas where elections are actually competitive. What a great system we have.

#10

Fzero

1 Frags – +

Wow, I really would love to know how they worded that issue on the ballot language.

Ohio's main ballot is issue 2, which would force the Redistricting process to be a citizen commission instead of politicians every 10 years

PS- I remember a old youtube video of Aurora Snow during a interview, while driving lol, where she was explaining in good detail how the porn industry really works. I think she talks a lot about STD's within the industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOt8FKS84Yw

Wow, I really would love to know how they worded that issue on the ballot language.

Ohio's main ballot is issue 2, which would force the Redistricting process to be a citizen commission instead of politicians every 10 years

PS- I remember a old youtube video of Aurora Snow during a interview, while driving lol, where she was explaining in good detail how the porn industry really works. I think she talks a lot about STD's within the industry.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOt8FKS84Yw[/youtube]

#11

waefwaef

1 Frags – +

YES on 37?

Why should California pay administrative money plus legal fees when we're already fucked by the debt to get every single grocery product you buy labeled with a GMO sign? Consumer information is important but it's not worth the cost of this proposition.

YES on 37?

Why should California pay administrative money plus legal fees when we're already fucked by the debt to get every single grocery product you buy labeled with a GMO sign? Consumer information is important but it's not worth the cost of this proposition.

#12

crumpet

1 Frags – +

#14 enjoy your cancer

#13

synchro

-9 Frags – +

lol politics on gaming forums

#14

waefwaef

1 Frags – +

wikipedia There is now broad scientific and regulatory consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops is safe enough to eat.[44][45][46][47] The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[48] A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[49] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[50]

[quote=wikipedia] There is now broad scientific and regulatory consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops is safe enough to eat.[44][45][46][47] The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[48] A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[49] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[50] [/quote]

#15

heero

6 Frags – +

i don't understand people who don't vote on the basis that "my vote doesn't matter". like if you think that way why not just do absolutely fucking nothing at all, because obviously your own individual action is so insignificant in the grand scheme of everything that it's really never worthwhile. if the importance of voting and expressing your voice on what you want to be done with your own country doesn't overcome your reservations about the power of individual action, i don't know what to say. why play tf2 - you'll never be invite. it doesn't matter. why learn - your education will never amount to anything extremely significant anyway. why live if your life is just going to be average and you'll die like everyone else, leaving no mark on the world that you existed. ??? so go vote

#16

crumpet

0 Frags – +

have you ever watched the x files

#20 you seem to have stumbled right up to the doorstep of an existential crisis, and then managed to turn away by lying to yourself.
PS your vote doesn't matter not only due to numbers but also because of the winner-takes-all voting system as well as only voting for one candidate

have you ever watched the x files

#20 you seem to have stumbled right up to the doorstep of an existential crisis, and then managed to turn away by lying to yourself.
PS your vote doesn't matter not only due to numbers but also because of the winner-takes-all voting system as well as only voting for one candidate

#17

clorg

3 Frags – +

vote or die

#18

crumpet

0 Frags – +

then kill me because our current system is a joke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

then kill me because our current system is a joke
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/youtube]

#19

waefwaef

1 Frags – +

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-5-2011/california-s-direct-democracy-troubles

#20

Waveski

0 Frags – +

Yeah, I'd much prefer the US to use the alternative vote/instant-runoff voting. But I will still vote because of my states ballot proposals, and because of some close local elects. And will probably write in a candidate for president.

#21

lyna

1 Frags – +

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B15oIc-B4K0

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B15oIc-B4K0[/youtube]

#22

snack_attack

1 Frags – +

I'm with #14, I voted no on 37. California doesn't need more debt.
#24, the youtube video is clearly talking about voting for candidates and not propositions. Why limit the discussion to propositions when most people here don't live in California?

#23

DrPloxo

-1 Frags – +

Wait, people take ron paul seriously?
That's funny.

#24

snack_attack

0 Frags – +

#29, you are correct that thinking your vote doesn't count is stupid. Voting doesn't cost you anything and it can only benefit you. But it does annoy me that there are so many propositions to vote for in California. What's the point of electing state senators if I end up having to vote for all these measures?

#25

Waveski

1 Frags – +

#31, isn't it because there are some issues that the legislature themselves don't want to vote on? Like an issue that they don't want to touch, or am I thinking of referendums again?

#26

synchro

0 Frags – +

People who say their vote doesn't matter are actually saying one of two things: 1) they don't really care who wins, or 2) because the majority of people may not agree with them, they feel there's no point in voting. The first one is kind of annoying, but the second one is more so; just because your vote is a tiny fraction of the election doesn't mean it's not counted. You voting for someone who is less popular isn't just throwing the vote away, it's "cancelling" a vote for another candidate, or at least taking one potential vote for them away.

Regardless of all that, the worst part about our democracy is that people who vote tend to not actually know what they're voting on. I had a friend who was voting early today and he was willing to talk about his opinions, only shortly before revealing that he doesn't actually know anything about things like the props. and wasn't going to bother voting on them. To me, if you're going to go vote on a president but can't take the time to review your local government decisions as well, you shouldn't be allowed to cast a vote that's counted. To me, democracy is great because the people as a whole get to make decisions about their government, but the biggest downfall is that there are a scary amount of people who don't actually know what they're talking about and are just voting on one or two issues, instead of all of them.

People who say their vote doesn't matter are actually saying one of two things: 1) they don't really care who wins, or 2) because the majority of people may not agree with them, they feel there's no point in voting. The first one is kind of annoying, but the second one is more so; just because your vote is a tiny fraction of the election doesn't mean it's not counted. You voting for someone who is less popular isn't just throwing the vote away, it's "cancelling" a vote for another candidate, or at least taking one potential vote for them away.

Regardless of all that, the worst part about our democracy is that people who vote tend to not actually know what they're voting on. I had a friend who was voting early today and he was willing to talk about his opinions, only shortly before revealing that he doesn't actually know anything about things like the props. and wasn't going to bother voting on them. To me, if you're going to go vote on a president but can't take the time to review your local government decisions as well, you shouldn't be allowed to cast a vote that's counted. To me, democracy is great because the people as a whole get to make decisions about their government, but the biggest downfall is that there are a scary amount of people who don't actually know what they're talking about and are just voting on one or two issues, instead of all of them.

#27

NewbieMcNewbface

0 Frags – +

Two of our more interesting ones:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Same-Sex_Marriage_Veto_Referendum,_Referendum_74_(2012)

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Marijuana_Legalization_and_Regulation,_Initiative_502_(2012)

I don't think the Feds will be too happy if that last one passes.

Two of our more interesting ones:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Same-Sex_Marriage_Veto_Referendum,_Referendum_74_(2012)

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Marijuana_Legalization_and_Regulation,_Initiative_502_(2012)

I don't think the Feds will be too happy if that last one passes.

#28

mustardoverlord

3 Frags – +

I'm voting in MA even though I live in NY just so I can vote for Elizabeth Warren

#29

mustardoverlord

2 Frags – +

Also, it doesn't really bother me when people don't vote because of the electoral college, but it does piss me off when they make up a really uninformed and hyperbolic excuse for not voting like "all the candidates are the same and nothing gets done in Congress anyways and the economy is too complicated for the president to affect so there's no point". Obviously that's complete horseshit.

Also fuck one-issue voters.

Also, it doesn't really bother me when people don't vote because of the electoral college, but it does piss me off when they make up a really uninformed and hyperbolic excuse for not voting like "all the candidates are the same and nothing gets done in Congress anyways and the economy is too complicated for the president to affect so there's no point". Obviously that's complete horseshit.

Also fuck one-issue voters.

#30

Sam_Houston

1 Frags – +

synchroPeople who say their vote doesn't matter are actually saying one of two things: 1) they don't really care who wins, or 2) because the majority of people may not agree with them, they feel there's no point in voting. The first one is kind of annoying, but the second one is more so; just because your vote is a tiny fraction of the election doesn't mean it's not counted. You voting for someone who is less popular isn't just throwing the vote away, it's "cancelling" a vote for another candidate, or at least taking one potential vote for them away.

There are actually a couple more reasons I've heard for people not voting.
If the point of voting is to "make your voice heard," then it's reasonable to believe that for some people, unless their vote is one of the deciding factors in a competitive election, then it's not heard. It's like people voting for Romney in California. Because we have single member districts (winner takes all), voting for a candidate assured of losing will not make any difference in the electoral results. Now, this is countered by the fact that most people don't vote on those sheerly rational, unemotional grounds. The people who do vote take enjoyment out of the process of voting itself, seeing it as a civic duty, regardless of whether or not the election is close or what have you. The people who don't vote don't have such an attitude, whereas the people who do believe that the feeling of doing their civic duty outweighs the (not negligible) cost of voting.
The second most common reason I hear is morality. This one has been voiced frequently during the current election cycle. People will refuse to vote for a candidate even if the candidate is more closely politically aligned with the voter than any other, if the candidate disagrees with the voters on certain issues that the voters view as paramount. This is single issue voters taken to the extreme. Interestingly, this view is often taken by those people who feel the first reason for not voting I gave is utterly incorrect. People who refuse to vote based on single issues define their expression (and specifically their vote) as meaning more than its actual impact on the results. Hence the reason some voters refuse to vote for Obama based on his drone strike policy, or the continuation of the wars. It's highly unlikely that Romney (or McCain) would have had significantly different policies on those two issues, but that's not enough for the non-voter. The non-voter refuses to make a trade-off between certain key (moral) issues and all other issues, and so does nothing at all.
There's a subset of this argument as well. The reasons I gave above are sufficient to dissuade certain people from voting for either of the two main candidates, but some people refuse to vote entirely. Voting grants legitimacy to the election. Even voting for the losing candidate says, for some people, "I want my candidate to win, but I accept that he may not win. If the other candidate wins, then I believe that he deserved to win and should become the next president/congressman/senator/water board member." For them, they see voter turnout as providing a mandate, regardless of how many of those votes actually went to the winner. And they're right, in this regard. It's likely Obama would have governed differently had the 2008 election not seen such a large increase in voter turnout.

The first problem is simple to solve, multi-member districts or proportional representation systems literally do make every vote count the same. Other solutions include reducing the cost of voting by making voter registration easier or having less stringent identity requirements at the polls, like the UK.
The second is an intractable issues. These people hold certain concepts inviolable, and that's not really something a democracy does. There's a clash (in theory) between democracy the idea of universal and eternal moral laws.
(Pt. 1/2)

[quote=synchro]People who say their vote doesn't matter are actually saying one of two things: 1) they don't really care who wins, or 2) because the majority of people may not agree with them, they feel there's no point in voting. The first one is kind of annoying, but the second one is more so; just because your vote is a tiny fraction of the election doesn't mean it's not counted. You voting for someone who is less popular isn't just throwing the vote away, it's "cancelling" a vote for another candidate, or at least taking one potential vote for them away.[/quote]

There are actually a couple more reasons I've heard for people not voting.
If the point of voting is to "make your voice heard," then it's reasonable to believe that for some people, unless their vote is one of the deciding factors in a competitive election, then it's not heard. It's like people voting for Romney in California. Because we have single member districts (winner takes all), voting for a candidate assured of losing will not make any difference in the electoral results. Now, this is countered by the fact that most people don't vote on those sheerly rational, unemotional grounds. The people who do vote take enjoyment out of the process of voting itself, seeing it as a civic duty, regardless of whether or not the election is close or what have you. The people who don't vote don't have such an attitude, whereas the people who do believe that the feeling of doing their civic duty outweighs the (not negligible) cost of voting.
The second most common reason I hear is morality. This one has been voiced frequently during the current election cycle. People will refuse to vote for a candidate even if the candidate is more closely politically aligned with the voter than any other, if the candidate disagrees with the voters on certain issues that the voters view as paramount. This is single issue voters taken to the extreme. Interestingly, this view is often taken by those people who feel the first reason for not voting I gave is utterly incorrect. People who refuse to vote based on single issues define their expression (and specifically their vote) as meaning more than its actual impact on the results. Hence the reason some voters refuse to vote for Obama based on his drone strike policy, or the continuation of the wars. It's highly unlikely that Romney (or McCain) would have had significantly different policies on those two issues, but that's not enough for the non-voter. The non-voter refuses to make a trade-off between certain key (moral) issues and all other issues, and so does nothing at all.
There's a subset of this argument as well. The reasons I gave above are sufficient to dissuade certain people from voting for either of the two main candidates, but some people refuse to vote entirely. Voting grants legitimacy to the election. Even voting for the losing candidate says, for some people, "I want my candidate to win, but I accept that he may not win. If the other candidate wins, then I believe that he deserved to win and should become the next president/congressman/senator/water board member." For them, they see voter turnout as providing a mandate, regardless of how many of those votes actually went to the winner. And they're right, in this regard. It's likely Obama would have governed differently had the 2008 election not seen such a large increase in voter turnout.

The first problem is simple to solve, multi-member districts or proportional representation systems literally do make every vote count the same. Other solutions include reducing the cost of voting by making voter registration easier or having less stringent identity requirements at the polls, like the UK.
The second is an intractable issues. These people hold certain concepts inviolable, and that's not really something a democracy does. There's a clash (in theory) between democracy the idea of universal and eternal moral laws.
(Pt. 1/2)