[Kaay-chan]

My mentality on willingly not voting is this: if you don't want to vote, that's your choice. But then you really don't have the right to complain if you don't like the decision that everyone else made. People who vote can complain, because, if they voted for the wrong person and that person won, then they were deceived, and if they voted for the right person and that person lost, then...well...I don't really think that one needs an explanation.

However, if you choose not to vote, and have a say in who gets elected from the beginning (or at least try to) then you really can't complain. Even if it's just a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, if every person who chose not to vote had voted for the lesser evil, maybe they could be the force that prevented the greater evil from winning.

[Sandstorm]

Kaay-chan, on 06 November 2010 - 02:28 AM, said:

My mentality on willingly not voting is this: if you don't want to vote, that's your choice. But then you really don't have the right to complain.

Truest story ever told. Well said, madame.

This post has been edited by callmeSamuel: 06 November 2010 - 08:59 AM

[Cherry_Wolf]

I didn't vote because of work. But in my small town I heard enough of the griping to not even want to even if I had the time off to do so. I heard one woman say the n word that I never imagined saying that word... and I was sadfaced for the rest of the day because of it. :[

In short, I hate my small redneck town.

[Stkbayfield]

Not that I would complain anyway, as I'm apathetic to US politics (which just isn't as FUN as UK politics), but isn't it unfair to say that someone doesn't have the right to complain if they are not given a vote to begin with? I mean, I understand your point was stating those who are old enough and legally capable, but what of those on the forum who are too young to vote or non-citizen residents such as myself?

[Sandstorm]

Stkbayfield, on 06 November 2010 - 10:18 AM, said:

Not that I would complain anyway, as I'm apathetic to US politics (which just isn't as FUN as UK politics), but isn't it unfair to say that someone doesn't have the right to complain if they are not given a vote to begin with? I mean, I understand your point was stating those who are old enough and legally capable, but what of those on the forum who are too young to vote or non-citizen residents such as myself?

No, we were only speaking of people who CAN vote, but CHOOSE NOT TO. If you can't vote, you can totally complain, it's cool, guy.

[XenoBlade]

callmeSamuel, on 04 November 2010 - 11:26 PM, said:

That was just a rumor. The actual number according to rumors was 4.7%, and the ACTUAL numbers were A: Pretty hard to estimate and B: almost definitely higher. The story behind the 4.7% was some random dude tweeting that about WISCONSIN only, and even that bit of information was incorrect.

Source

Page explaining how source is credible.

A CBS source that puts the estimate at 10% (The lowest I've seen, still much higher than 4%)

/Hunter S Thompson

Ah, well yeah, I heard from Twitter from a friend (who is pretty reliable on info). So I wasn't 100% on the info. however, I know the number was gonna be low in any case. It maybe have not been 4%, but I know it won't be anything past 20%. Besides voting for Obama that is. lol

[Sandstorm]

XenoBlade, on 06 November 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

Ah, well yeah, I heard from Twitter from a friend (who is pretty reliable on info). So I wasn't 100% on the info. however, I know the number was gonna be low in any case. It maybe have not been 4%, but I know it won't be anything past 20%. Besides voting for Obama that is. lol

How could you know that? The EAC doesn't really measure that kind of information.

Not instigating, just asking. Do you have a source?

This post has been edited by callmeSamuel: 06 November 2010 - 03:56 PM

[jsieczkar]

For those that did not vote do to work many states have laws that companies must give you time to vote, in many cases paid time off:
Illinois - Every employee is entitled, after giving notice, to two hours off work, provided that the employee's working hours begin less than 2 hours after the opening of the polls and end less than 2 hours before the closing of the polls. Illinois also requires that the time be paid time off.
Indiana - No law
Iowa - Any voter who does not have three consecutive hours in the period between the time of the opening and the time of the closing of the polls during which they are not required to work may take as much time off of work as necessary to give then three consecutive hours in which to vote.
Michigan - No law
Missouri - An employee may, with prior notice to their employer, take three hours off work to vote if there are not three consecutive hours when the polls are open during which the employee is not required to be at work.
New York - Employees who do not have 4 consecutive non-working hours between polls opening and closing, and who do not have "sufficient" non-working time to vote, are entitled to up to 2 hours paid leave to vote. Employees must request the leave between 2 and 10 days before Election Day. The employer can specify whether it be taken at beginning or end of shift. Employers must post this rule conspicuously 10 days prior to election.
Wisconsin - Employees are entitled to up to 3 hours leave to vote. The employee must request leave before Election Day. Pay can be deducted for time lost. The employer can set the time for leave to vote.

[XenoBlade]

callmeSamuel, on 06 November 2010 - 03:39 PM, said:

How could you know that? The EAC doesn't really measure that kind of information.

Not instigating, just asking. Do you have a source?

It was a joke man. lol Relax. lol I know I'm serious too, but yeah, there is no way to tell. I was just joking on the non-voting stereotype. lol

This post has been edited by XenoBlade: 06 November 2010 - 05:13 PM

[Kaay-chan]

callmeSamuel, on 06 November 2010 - 02:33 PM, said:

No, we were only speaking of people who CAN vote, but CHOOSE NOT TO. If you can't vote, you can totally complain, it's cool, guy.

Exactly. That's why I said "willingly not voting."

If you're too young to vote, not only can you complain, you can complain about not being able to vote (God knows I did).

[Animexcel]

The only time I'll complain is when everyone who voted starts to complain. xD

[Jeff]

I and everyone I know could vote for the same guy, and the guy who got the most publicity will still be voted in. The criminal that's got the money to back his own promotion. That is why I do not vote.

[Sandstorm]

Jeff, on 06 November 2010 - 06:34 PM, said:

I and everyone I know could vote for the same guy, and the guy who got the most publicity will still be voted in. The criminal that's got the money to back his own promotion. That is why I do not vote.

Yeah, there's a huge issue with campaign contribution laws right now, since the laws are supposedly fairly liberal about contributions from corporations, and even allow them to remain anonymous sometimes. It's especially weird because individuals are extremely limited in comparison.

SOURCES:
Campaign laws for individuals
Supreme Courts' 2008 decision that campaign fairness laws were unconstitutional
Wikipedia article on campaign finance in the US
Wikipedia article on Campaign finance reform in the US

Edit: Can you guys tell I really love journalism?

This post has been edited by callmeSamuel: 06 November 2010 - 08:16 PM

[XenoBlade]

My biggest issue is why do we need someone to vote for us when we already voted? (electoral college) very redundant. I never been a fan of that.

[Sandstorm]

XenoBlade, on 06 November 2010 - 08:37 PM, said:

My biggest issue is why do we need someone to vote for us when we already voted? (electoral college) very redundant. I never been a fan of that.

I agree, it is. It's actually highly outdated, somewhat confusing, and should probably be done away with. There are a couple of theories why it was put into place:

1. It was originally put in place by the founding fathers as a way to hold democracy in check, because the theory was that sometimes a candidate who was popular might be bad for the country.

2. If it was simply based of popular vote, the person from the most populous state would win every time.

3. It was made to appease both the people who believed in strong central government, and the people who believed in individual state governments.

Either way, now that we have tools of mass communication like TV and the internet, more freedom of information, and a more educated common public (I mean in comparison to the late 1700's), it seems a bit obsolete to me.


SOURCES:
Theory 1
Theory 2 + 3 (sort of)
More stuff

[Kaay-chan]

callmeSamuel, on 06 November 2010 - 08:53 PM, said:

I agree, it is. It's actually highly outdated, somewhat confusing, and should probably be done away with. There are a couple of theories why it was put into place:

1. It was originally put in place by the founding fathers as a way to hold democracy in check, because the theory was that sometimes a candidate who was popular might be bad for the country.

2. If it was simply based of popular vote, the person from the most populous state would win every time.

3. It was made to appease both the people who believed in strong central government, and the people who believed in individual state governments.

Either way, now that we have tools of mass communication like TV and the internet, more freedom of information, and a more educated common public (I mean in comparison to the late 1700's), it seems a bit obsolete to me.


SOURCES:
Theory 1
Theory 2 + 3 (sort of)
More stuff

I think part of why they keep it in place is because otherwise politicians would only campaign in the places with the biggest populations. =/ I'm not saying I'm for or against it, but I think it was a history teacher of mine who pointed that out, and she was a political scientist.

[Sandstorm]

Kaay-chan, on 06 November 2010 - 09:59 PM, said:

I think part of why they keep it in place is because otherwise politicians would only campaign in the places with the biggest populations. =/ I'm not saying I'm for or against it, but I think it was a history teacher of mine who pointed that out, and she was a political scientist.

That sounds like a legit reason (Although they kind of do that anyway. I've not seen too much republican campaigning in California compared to, say, Ohio).

[basili1250]

Watched V for Vendetta on Nov 5th (durr) and when the credits rolled a friend said, "And that's why you vote democratic."

Much lulling commenced.

Just a thought

[sentinel28a]

basili1250, on 07 November 2010 - 03:31 AM, said:

Watched V for Vendetta on Nov 5th (durr) and when the credits rolled a friend said, "And that's why you vote democratic."

Much lulling commenced.

Just a thought

V For Vendetta is crap when it comes to history. Guy Fawkes, for instance, was not some misunderstood freedom fighter. In fact, he was going to blow up Parliament because he wanted England to return to a Catholic theocracy, whereas Parliament was moving away from that. So basically, the person that V was supposedly emulating had a mindset closer to that of Osama bin Laden, who also wants to set up a theocracy, in this case, an Islamic one (and a very radical interpretation of Islam at that). Hugo Weaving wouldn't have been as awesome in an Osama mask, though.

But since the movie version of V For Vendetta is one long thinly veiled 9/11 Truther rant, I'm not sure that voting for one party or another is the message you're supposed to carry away from it. It's even more laughable considering that the original graphic novel was more of a celebration of anarchism than anything else.

Hmm. British politics are more interesting than American...wish we had an equivalent to Prime Minister's Questions over here.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
*yells like a backbencher*

This post has been edited by sentinel28a: 07 November 2010 - 04:45 AM

[basili1250]

Truth, the graphic novel > film

I'm taking British legislature/politics classes next year, it shall be seen as to which catches my eye

[Kaay-chan]

sentinel28a, on 07 November 2010 - 04:44 AM, said:

V For Vendetta is crap when it comes to history. Guy Fawkes, for instance, was not some misunderstood freedom fighter. In fact, he was going to blow up Parliament because he wanted England to return to a Catholic theocracy, whereas Parliament was moving away from that. So basically, the person that V was supposedly emulating had a mindset closer to that of Osama bin Laden, who also wants to set up a theocracy, in this case, an Islamic one (and a very radical interpretation of Islam at that). Hugo Weaving wouldn't have been as awesome in an Osama mask, though.

But since the movie version of V For Vendetta is one long thinly veiled 9/11 Truther rant, I'm not sure that voting for one party or another is the message you're supposed to carry away from it. It's even more laughable considering that the original graphic novel was more of a celebration of anarchism than anything else.

Hmm. British politics are more interesting than American...wish we had an equivalent to Prime Minister's Questions over here.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
*yells like a backbencher*

First of all, I realize this is way off topic, but since it was brought up....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't V for Vendetta based to some extent on The Count of Monte Cristo? =/

[Sandstorm]

sentinel28a, on 07 November 2010 - 04:44 AM, said:

V For Vendetta is crap when it comes to history. Guy Fawkes, for instance, was not some misunderstood freedom fighter. In fact, he was going to blow up Parliament because he wanted England to return to a Catholic theocracy, whereas Parliament was moving away from that.

I thought it was because he was ROMAN Catholic, and the country was moving towards protestant and were becoming highly intolerant of anything but protestant.

I am too lazy to look for a source right now, though.

[sentinel28a]

callmeSamuel, on 07 November 2010 - 09:48 AM, said:

I thought it was because he was ROMAN Catholic, and the country was moving towards protestant and were becoming highly intolerant of anything but protestant.

I am too lazy to look for a source right now, though.

Roman Catholic=Catholic. No difference. (We Irish Catholics like to brag that we're different, but we're not.) England was already Protestant and becoming more so--Henry VIII had taken the country out of the Catholic Church and replaced it with the Anglican Church, which started out as basically Catholic but, by Fawkes' time, was becoming more and more Protestant.

And yes, they were becoming more intolerant of religions other than Anglicanism: the Puritans and Pilgrims were only about 20 years away from saying "Screw you guys!" and heading off to Massachusetts. Given that Fawkes intended to decapitate the government, hoping to restore Catholics to the throne, and then ally with Spain--who Elizabeth I had narrowly kept from overrunning the country in 1588--it would've been exchanging one group of intolerants for an even more severe intolerance. Moreover, England's tradition of freedom, which we inherited, would likely not have survived a Catholic takeover at that time. (It would barely survive Cromwell's fanatic Taliban-style dictatorship a few decades later.)

It's bad enough that the Wachowskis basically ignored the plot of the graphic novel in favor of pushing their own political agenda, but screwing with history is worse IMHO. But I'm biased...

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"Thanks a lot, Guy!"

[Sandstorm]

^Do you have a source?

[sentinel28a]

callmeSamuel, on 07 November 2010 - 01:16 PM, said:

^Do you have a source?

Guy Fawkes on Wikipedia That's the easiest one to hand.

I also teach this for a living. Doesn't make me necessarily right, just more likely to be.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"At least I hope so"