Election 2014

[NorthSideSox72]

My retort to that is that a vote cast for a third party is a much better way to display dissatisfaction with both parties than not voting. You can put actual numbers to that group.

Yup. All not showing up does is give the folks that are on the take an even better chance at winning, and feeling like they can do what they want.

 

Fun example - in that awful Blago-BarrTopinka election, people were so disgusted with the choices, the Green Party got a significant part of the vote while spending basically zero money campaigning. So much so that they became eligible for state funds for the next race.

 

And of course the other way to do this is, get involved, not just voting.

 

[mr_genius]

I am hoping for total gridlock in congress so they don't make things worse, which they would if they could actually pass anything. seems like most politicians are "for" things that are simply based on whatever corporation/lobby group pays the most bribes.

[pettie4sox]

Republicans need to use this 2 year window as an audition for their 2016 Prez candidate otherwise they'll have another democrat to sandbag.

[Jake]

The turnout figure I posted is not at all based on registrations. It is based on the voting-eligible population, which includes both registered and non-registered voters. They use data from census research, American Community Survey (to determine the amount of non-citizens), and prison records (to determine number of incarcerated and felons).

 

A quick look at state-by-state data:

 

Top -

Maine, 59%

Wisconsin, 56%

Alaska, 55%

Oregon, 52%

Colorado, 52%

 

Bottom -

Indiana, 28%

Texas, 28%

Utah, 29%

New York, 29%

Tennessee, 29%

Mississippi, 29%

Oklahoma, 29%

 

Even disregarding explanations, it's sickening to think that we are effectively ruled by such small portions of our citizenry. There's an extent to which we try to keep people from voting, there's an extent to which people's lives are too hard to really think about politics, some people just suck, some people are careless, the entire institution is rather unsupported structurally....whatever the reason, it hardly feels like living in a democracy when only a third of the people who can decide who governs end up deciding who governs.

 

The portion of people old enough to vote who cannot legally vote has also increased in the past 30-40 years due to the rising felon population.

 

While I get pissed at the Republican Party for what I believe are voter suppression tactics, the Democrats that have control in various places in the USA hardly over-extend trying to use their power to get more people to the polls. The goal of both parties ought to be to get as many people to vote as possible with as little fraud as possible. One party is just focused on the fraud and the other party isn't focused on anything. You couldn't spend too much money on trying to make sure your country gives a voice to as many people as possible.

 

What's most difficult to account for is the possibly disenfranchising effect of geography. I live in Ohio, which is supposed to be super swing state. Despite living right smack dab in liberal Columbus, I live in an uncompetitive Republican congressional district. In statewide elections, it was clear long before the elections that Republicans would win everything easily. Several city-wide positions were uncontested. I voted, but I feel that the main thing of consequence that I did was cast votes for the local Green Party who needs them to get ballot access back (state government had no problem using bipartisan cooperation to pass laws removing third parties from the ballot unless they meet new, onerous requirements).

[StrangeSox]

While I get pissed at the Republican Party for what I believe are voter suppression tactics, the Democrats that have control in various places in the USA hardly over-extend trying to use their power to get more people to the polls. The goal of both parties ought to be to get as many people to vote as possible with as little fraud as possible. One party is just focused on the fraud and the other party isn't focused on anything. You couldn't spend too much money on trying to make sure your country gives a voice to as many people as possible.

I had a Dick Durbin campaigner come to my door in September and ask if I wanted to sign up to vote by mail. I was already planning on voting on election day, but both my wife and I decided to go this route. I don't know why they don't make more of an effort like that--go to every registered democrat and independent in your precinct and try to get them to sign up to vote early.

 

Their current midterm strategy, which is hard to actually discern, clearly doesn't work.

Edited November 7, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

The turnout figure I posted is not at all based on registrations. It is based on the voting-eligible population, which includes both registered and non-registered voters. They use data from census research, American Community Survey (to determine the amount of non-citizens), and prison records (to determine number of incarcerated and felons).

 

A quick look at state-by-state data:

 

Top -

Maine, 59%

Wisconsin, 56%

Alaska, 55%

Oregon, 52%

Colorado, 52%

 

Bottom -

Indiana, 28%

Texas, 28%

Utah, 29%

New York, 29%

Tennessee, 29%

Mississippi, 29%

Oklahoma, 29%

 

Even disregarding explanations, it's sickening to think that we are effectively ruled by such small portions of our citizenry. There's an extent to which we try to keep people from voting, there's an extent to which people's lives are too hard to really think about politics, some people just suck, some people are careless, the entire institution is rather unsupported structurally....whatever the reason, it hardly feels like living in a democracy when only a third of the people who can decide who governs end up deciding who governs.

 

The portion of people old enough to vote who cannot legally vote has also increased in the past 30-40 years due to the rising felon population.

 

While I get pissed at the Republican Party for what I believe are voter suppression tactics, the Democrats that have control in various places in the USA hardly over-extend trying to use their power to get more people to the polls. The goal of both parties ought to be to get as many people to vote as possible with as little fraud as possible. One party is just focused on the fraud and the other party isn't focused on anything. You couldn't spend too much money on trying to make sure your country gives a voice to as many people as possible.

 

What's most difficult to account for is the possibly disenfranchising effect of geography. I live in Ohio, which is supposed to be super swing state. Despite living right smack dab in liberal Columbus, I live in an uncompetitive Republican congressional district. In statewide elections, it was clear long before the elections that Republicans would win everything easily. Several city-wide positions were uncontested. I voted, but I feel that the main thing of consequence that I did was cast votes for the local Green Party who needs them to get ballot access back (state government had no problem using bipartisan cooperation to pass laws removing third parties from the ballot unless they meet new, onerous requirements).

 

Something I think people ignore: apathy in voting may be a sign that the vast majority of people in this country are happy and satisfied. They don't want change for the sake of change. They don't need a cause to latch on to. Can things be better? Sure. Is it imperative that we have massive change every 2 or 4 years? No. In fact that's usually a bad thing.

 

And really, most politicians who promise some kind of change are talking to a small percent of people. Rauner talking about getting rid of the 2% tax hike is great. But it's not going to affect the majority of people greatly one way or the other. Same with minimum wage. How many people does that really affect? 5%? 10% of the population? The rest don't give a s*** other than "yeah, you know, I think that's a good idea!"

 

edit: Another thing that gets me: people talk about change on a national level, when in reality 99% of change that is going to affect your daily life comes from the local level. If you're disenfranchised a senator in Washington isn't going to be the solution. Yet that's where all the debates about change go, and I'm not sure why. It's been this general trend of increasing the importance and authority of the federal government (and mostly the executive the last few decades) as if that's going to really matter. Local change is where it's at. Local and state level authority was intended to be the most important. But that's not how it works today and that is probably the number one problem we have in our government: too much emphasis on Washington. Not enough at home.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

While I get pissed at the Republican Party for what I believe are voter suppression tactics, the Democrats that have control in various places in the USA hardly over-extend trying to use their power to get more people to the polls. The goal of both parties ought to be to get as many people to vote as possible with as little fraud as possible. One party is just focused on the fraud and the other party isn't focused on anything. You couldn't spend too much money on trying to make sure your country gives a voice to as many people as possible.

This is flat out incorrect. There are plenty of safeguards to prevent people from voting illegally already. There's not even an "enforce the laws we have" joke to be made here, they already are enforced and they work fine - about the only thing that genuinely makes voter fraud possible is the presence of absentee ballots and to get your hands on those you have to jump through several hoops.

 

Otherwise you've got several steps before a single person can vote. Voter impersonation is nearly impossible (you need to know 100% that no one you're impersonating will come to the polls on their own otherwise they'll ask how their name got checked off as having already voted!), illegal immigrants have both difficulties with registering to vote and not having their names on the rolls when they show up, and law enforcement does a fine job of enforcing these laws in the cases of small time voter fraud.

[StrangeSox]

I think Jake was more saying that Democratic GOTV efforts can really suck for any race other than President.

[StrangeSox]

Something I think people ignore: apathy in voting may be a sign that the vast majority of people in this country are happy and satisfied. They don't want change for the sake of change. They don't need a cause to latch on to. Can things be better? Sure. Is it imperative that we have massive change every 2 or 4 years? No. In fact that's usually a bad thing.

 

And really, most politicians who promise some kind of change are talking to a small percent of people. Rauner talking about getting rid of the 2% tax hike is great. But it's not going to affect the majority of people greatly one way or the other. Same with minimum wage. How many people does that really affect? 5%? 10% of the population? The rest don't give a s*** other than "yeah, you know, I think that's a good idea!"

 

On my more cynical days, I think that this is unfortunately true.

[EvilMonkey]

This is flat out incorrect. There are plenty of safeguards to prevent people from voting illegally already. There's not even an "enforce the laws we have" joke to be made here, they already are enforced and they work fine - about the only thing that genuinely makes voter fraud possible is the presence of absentee ballots and to get your hands on those you have to jump through several hoops.

 

Otherwise you've got several steps before a single person can vote. Voter impersonation is nearly impossible (you need to know 100% that no one you're impersonating will come to the polls on their own otherwise they'll ask how their name got checked off as having already voted!), illegal immigrants have both difficulties with registering to vote and not having their names on the rolls when they show up, and law enforcement does a fine job of enforcing these laws in the cases of small time voter fraud.

yeah, same day registration takes care of those. And if you vote first, before the real person shows up, what are they going to do, go fishing in the ballot box for the one illegally cast? Once cast, it is a done deal.

[StrangeSox]

yeah, same day registration takes care of those. And if you vote first, before the real person shows up, what are they going to do, go fishing in the ballot box for the one illegally cast? Once cast, it is a done deal.

This actually happened to a friend of mine on Tuesday. He was given a provisional ballot instead.

[Cknolls]

The turnout figure I posted is not at all based on registrations. It is based on the voting-eligible population, which includes both registered and non-registered voters. They use data from census research, American Community Survey (to determine the amount of non-citizens), and prison records (to determine number of incarcerated and felons).

 

A quick look at state-by-state data:

 

Top -

Maine, 59%

Wisconsin, 56%

Alaska, 55%

Oregon, 52%

Colorado, 52%

 

Bottom -

Indiana, 28%

Texas, 28%

Utah, 29%

New York, 29%

Tennessee, 29%

Mississippi, 29%

Oklahoma, 29%

 

Even disregarding explanations, it's sickening to think that we are effectively ruled by such small portions of our citizenry. There's an extent to which we try to keep people from voting, there's an extent to which people's lives are too hard to really think about politics, some people just suck, some people are careless, the entire institution is rather unsupported structurally....whatever the reason, it hardly feels like living in a democracy when only a third of the people who can decide who governs end up deciding who governs.

 

The portion of people old enough to vote who cannot legally vote has also increased in the past 30-40 years due to the rising felon population.

 

While I get pissed at the Republican Party for what I believe are voter suppression tactics, the Democrats that have control in various places in the USA hardly over-extend trying to use their power to get more people to the polls. The goal of both parties ought to be to get as many people to vote as possible with as little fraud as possible. One party is just focused on the fraud and the other party isn't focused on anything. You couldn't spend too much money on trying to make sure your country gives a voice to as many people as possible.

 

What's most difficult to account for is the possibly disenfranchising effect of geography. I live in Ohio, which is supposed to be super swing state. Despite living right smack dab in liberal Columbus, I live in an uncompetitive Republican congressional district. In statewide elections, it was clear long before the elections that Republicans would win everything easily. Several city-wide positions were uncontested. I voted, but I feel that the main thing of consequence that I did was cast votes for the local Green Party who needs them to get ballot access back (state government had no problem using bipartisan cooperation to pass laws removing third parties from the ballot unless they meet new, onerous requirements).

 

 

 

Welcome to the world of the Illinois Republican

[StrangeSox]

Undoing the 435 cap and decreasing the people-per-rep ratio could go a long way to better, more meaningful representation.

[NorthSideSox72]

Undoing the 435 cap and decreasing the people-per-rep ratio could go a long way to better, more meaningful representation.

I think if that number gets much bigger it could be come unwieldy. It makes concensus building that much harder.

 

[Balta1701]

yeah, same day registration takes care of those. And if you vote first, before the real person shows up, what are they going to do, go fishing in the ballot box for the one illegally cast? Once cast, it is a done deal.

Yes, that's exactly what they'd do, and it wouldn't be nearly as hard as "fishing in a ballot box" even with card-reading machines from 20 years ago.

[mr_genius]

Yes, that's exactly what they'd do, and it wouldn't be nearly as hard as "fishing in a ballot box" even with card-reading machines from 20 years ago.

 

how do you know which one was the real person? what if the real person voted first and second was committing fraud?

[Balta1701]

how do you know which one was the real person? what if the real person voted first and second was committing fraud?

2 people are in an elevator. Suddenly the scent of a fart appears in said elevator.

 

Clearly this case is unsolvable.

[mr_genius]

2 people are in an elevator. Suddenly the scent of a fart appears in said elevator.

 

Clearly this case is unsolvable.

 

 

WHICH IS THE REAL KRUSTY?

Edited November 7, 2014 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

 

WHICH IS THE REAL KRUSTY?

Without the loop it is nothing.

[StrangeSox]

I'm seein' double! Four Krusties!