Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Tage on October 19, 2004, 01:32:56 PM
-
Speaking of politics, a friend of mine told me about this site last night:
http://www.votepair.org/
Basically, it's a semi-formal way of "vote swapping" between people in different states. One of the huge frustrations of being a non-Bush supporter in Utah is that I know my vote will count for nothing here. However, there are strong supporters of third-party candidates in swing states who simply want their man to get a certain percent of the popular vote. So we vote swap, and I vote for their guy, and they vote for my guy, and we both get our voices heard.
So anyway, I don't know how many others are in heavy right-wing states and want their vote to count for something, but I thought I'd share this just in case.
-
*blink*
That's really cool.
*Registers*
-
so... how does swapping votes INCREASE the votes their candidate receives?
-
It doesn't, but theoretically it increases their chances.
For example, in Utah, Bush will win by a landslide, so voting for Kerry is pointless. However, voting for Nader is still worthwhile in Utah, because Nader is only trying to get 5% of the vote (and thus government funds for next election), not trying to win.
In a battleground state, such as Florida, voting for Nader will hurt Kerry's chances to win. So, someone in Florida who wants to vote for Nader will swap with someone in Utah who wants to vote for Kerry. The Floridian will vote for Kerry, which will help Kerry, and the Utahn will vote for Nader, which will help Nader.
So, theoretically, it's good.
Of course, that said, I find this to be one of the most unethical slaps in the face to the American governmental system I've ever heard.
-
is it 5% of the electoral college then? Or 5% in each state? or what?
-
5% of the total votes.
-
Than it doesn't help the third-party candidate at all. Unless he's a liar too. Someone else is jsut making the vote that's made at all.
-
After several years of navigating this forum, I've come to pride myself on my ability to understand incoherency. But:
Someone else is jsut making the vote that's made at all.
Wha??
-
I blame the children. Let me try coherancy for a change:
It should read "Someone else is just going to be casting a vote that was going to be cast anyway."
In other words, if there are 50 million registered voters, and Nader needs 5% of those 50 million votes to get funs, then he needs 2.5 million votes, regardless of where those votes come from. It's irrelevant whether (as in the case you mentioned above) the person in Florida votes for him or the person in Utah votes for him. He still just gets one vote out of the deal. Seems like the person voting for Kerry gets the advantage, and the person in Florida just has to trust the Kerry-fan will vote as he says. Unless of course the Nader-fan is dishonest, in which case the Green Party gets one extra vote.
Which is the biggest practical problem with this set up. There's no way to prove that someone is doing what they say they'll do. I *hope* that there's some measure to make sure someone isn't selling his vote TWICE, but even that has major potential fears for it.
-
The whole premise of the swap is that it doesn't matter where the Nader votes come from--it only matters where the Kerry votes come from. So, this doesn't help Nader much--except that people don't have to abandon voting for Nader so they can vote for Kerry.
Yeah -- there are a lot of practical problems with this setup. Like I said, I think it's horrendous.
-
Well, seeing as how I think the electoral college is nothing more than a way to drown true democracy and one of the real "unethical slaps in the face to the American governmental system," I think this is a great idea. Seriously, why should my vote be utterly ignored by our electoral process just because I live in a state where I'm out-numbered by people who think otherwise?
-
"True democracy" heh
uhm... the Constitution doesn't do anything CLOSE to trying to establish a true democracy. This is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. We don't vote on every issue, we vote on representatives who vote on issues.
I don't want true democracy, it'd make a mess of things. The representative democracy is better. I don't think the Electoral College is the best solution, but it's hardly a slap in the face of a system it was a part of at conception.
NOte that at no time in this little rant did I say that I do, or do not, like the electoral college. The EC was designed to represent a confederation: so individual STATES had representation, not the people, because 230 years ago, the states were the "nations" while the US was more of an alliance in a lot of people's minds. That's a big result of the civil war: that perception was changing, and the war forced that change on to the people (and yes, I know slavery was a major factor in it, but look at major figures like General Lee, who fought for Virginia because he was a Virginian, and not because he believed slavery was right).
Anyway, I'm still not expressing my opinion on it, but it IS worth noting that few people think of themselves primarily as a state citizen first and a US citizen second.
-
To put it simply: because we live in a republic, not a democracy. And in reality, the only way that anyone living outside of a major urban area would receive any recognition from the government is because of a representative government, and the electoral college.
I'm heading into a meeting for a few hours, but let me say a few quick things, and I'll write more later:
1) Your vote does count. The notion that your vote is somehow void, just because you're in the minority, really bugs me.
2) The governmental system revolves around the balance between state rights and federal rights. If there were no representative government, and only pure nation-wide democracy, then the concerns of the minorities would be ignored.
Like I said...I have to run. I'll write more soon.
-
I actually agree with HoM for once.
For one, I'm fed up with places like Utah being governed by places like New York and California.
Mostly however, it because I can see how easily the populat vote gets swayed in the wrong direction. Not that I'm one to always doubt the wisdom of heards, after having dealt with the "high art" society for a couple of years, some herds can be really stupid.
Plus, there is no way that things like Momonism would have been allowed to thrive if it had been left up to a popular vote.
So votepair.org seems like nothing more than a place for sore losers.
-
1) Your vote does count. The notion that your vote is somehow void, just because you're in the minority, really bugs me.
It doesn't seem to affect my local representative here in Brookline. We were all asked to write our local reps during that big thing with gay marriage, so many of us did. Everyone got back a form letter saying, "Thank you for your support of gay marriage. I'm glad you agree with me," etc.--obviously that rep didn't read the letters, and is not bothering to listen to the minority of voters in his district. Yet there's no way we'll be able to vote him out, because the majority of voters here do agree with him. So being in the minority is really frustrating.
I have no solutions. I'm just venting.
-
There is something about the entire Electoral College idea that just bugs me. I wonder how much opposition there would be to actually giving voters the true ability to elect their leaders.
-
The idea of true democracy would not work. It could work if people were to check every issue, think it through, consider the possibilities and then vote. Which is never going to happen. So we vote those that we feel represent our views best, because they can give issues the proper consideration, and can do so due to doing it full time. That is the idea, and yes, it is not perfect. But boyo, nothing is. Modern democratic states are the most ethical and just states ever to exist on Earth. The current system is the only realistic one, given the mentality of the average citizen and the current level of technology.
-
There is something about the entire Electoral College idea that just bugs me. I wonder how much opposition there would be to actually giving voters the true ability to elect their leaders.
People do elect their leaders, the thing is the leader is not elected by the nation wide popular vote, but by a state wide popular vote.
The college was also put into place (among the other things) was to keep people that were pro england and it's monarchy out. If, at the founding of the country, the popular vote was for someone who wanted to rejoin England and disolve the US, the Electorial College could vote for someone else instead, thus keeping out the pro england loon. The founding fathers, rightly so, never trusted the general populace to elect a leader. There actualy have been a few times where the repesentive for the state actualy voted for someone who didn't win the state (think the last time it happend was aound the early 1900's).
Personaly I think all the people that are complaining about it are the ones that didn't pay attenting on 4th grade civics class . Oh, and I agree with what has been said about Voterpair, if you're going to use a site like that then don't vote, you don't deserve the right to. I also wouldn't be surprised it that was illiegal too.
-
I like the electoral college. However, I don't think it's perfect. I like the District Method like Maine and Nebraska use.
But I also like the idea of instant-runoff elections, like is used for the Hugo Award voting (and elections in Australia), where you rank your choices from 1 (your top choice) on down, and if the top vote-getter of first choices doesn't have a majority, they knock out the lowest votegetters and apply their votes to the 2nd and 3rd choices etc. until there is a winner with over 50%. That way people won't be afraid of voting for who they really want rather than who they think will beat the guy they want to lose.
AND I like the "none of the above" vote, where if it wins, new people have to run. ;)
...that said...I'm voting absentee in Ohio, because Bush has no chance in California... >_>
-
Ya, let me add that I agree with what Ookla said about Nebraska and mane. What those states do is divide the total electorial college votes among all the canididates based off the percentage they got (rounded up for the majority winner down for the looser). So, for example, if Nebraska has 10 votes (I'm too lasy too look up their actualy count) and bush gets 60% of the vote (which he probaly will since NE is almost all wayse a red state) he'd get 6 collage votes while Kerry (assumeing he gets 40%) would get 4.
Now what I don't like about this meathod is that right now the DNC is trying to pass laws in battlegound states that would require them to do this this election. And I'm sure to balence things out the RNC is doing the same things in states where it would hurt kerry (like in CA). You either need to do it in ALL the states or NONE of them, none of this selective bull crap where you're doing it just to help/hurt a specific canidate.
-
Oh, and since we allready have a Political discussion about stupid ideas I'd like to add this to the fray:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/britain.letters.reut/index.html
-
No, that's not what Maine and Nebraska do. That's called proportional something. That's what Colorado is voting on at this election, and if it passes, their electoral vote THIS YEAR will be divided in that way.
The District Method, which Nebraska and Maine use, give 2 electoral votes to the winner of the state, and 1 to the winner of each representative's district. So Maine has 4 electoral votes total; it's possible that 3 could go to 1 candidate and 1 to another. Perot came close to winning 1 electoral vote there in 92, I believe.
I am not in favor of the proportional thing Colorado is doing. Since historically the margin is very small, people would only win by 1 or 2 electoral votes in every close state, or tie. You might as well not have an electoral college at all, then. Which may be the point for some people who like it.
[EDIT: Heh. Clark County is the county directly north of my Ohio county. Home of Springfield and Young's Jersey Dairy.]
-
Ben, you're cool, and thank you for posting this link. To everyone who thinks it's crap, go stick your head in a bucket of cheese. At least we're trying to work with an election system that is crappy and actually VOTING and trying to make a difference instead of throwing our vote away.
-
I don't see the overall difference between perportional and districk Ookla, in both cases the looser only has a chance of winning a few votes. You're saying one is bad becasue it gives so few votes yet the one you like gives the same amount.
-
I'm going to agree with Entropy on True Demoncracy. Most of the people I know (small city in Idaho) just vote straight Republican because they don't have the time/energy/interest to find out who they would want to vote for for the issues. Most just figure one or the other will be better for the general economy. Americans just aren't responsible enough to become a true democracy.
-
I don't see the overall difference between perportional and districk Ookla, in both cases the looser only has a chance of winning a few votes. You're saying one is bad becasue it gives so few votes yet the one you like gives the same amount.
Not really. I'm saying proportional is bad because it doesn't differentiate enough. District is good because it allows states not to be dominated by the opinions of people in a couple large cities. (Okay, I didn't actually say that before.)
I like the electoral college because it allows for a clear regional voice to emerge. The district method would make the blocks smaller. So for Colorado under the district method, Denver might be blue but the rest of the state red. Under the proportion system, the whole state would just be purple.
-
To everyone who thinks it's crap, shut the hell up. At least we're trying to work with an election system that is crappy and actually VOTING and trying to make a difference instead of throwing our vote away.
Not to add fuel to the fire, but:
[inflammatory remarks]
What actually throws your vote away is that you are not working within the real, effective system. You're not (correct me if I'm wrong) out donating your time to the party of your choice, volunteering for campaigns, actively participating in grassroots activities -- so that you might have a chance of swinging a real election.
Instead, at the last minute before an election, you're claiming that the system (that you have not participated in) is hopeless, and you're going to give in to an internet fad, pretending that you're poltically active.
That's what makes me sick about vote-swapping. It's trading in your blood-earned freedom to vote for a trendy excuse. You're giving up your real choice to the choice of somebody you've never met, who may or may not actually vote according to the agreement.
Once again, if you've done ANYTHING to be poltically active, let me know. But if you haven't, then quit pretending. The system can work, despite the pop culture idea that it can't. But it doesn't work if you don't do anything.
[/inflammatory remarks]
-
Incidentally, I'm not trying to point my remarks at fuzzy. I'm pointing them at vote-swappers collectively. Fuzzy just happened to be here at the time.
No personal offense intended.
-
I'm sorry, WHERE exactly did we say we weren't going to vote before this came up?
Never mind, I shiouldn't even care
-
The vote-swapping is based on a lot of flawed thoughts to begin with. First it is based on the premise that no intelligeent person would ever vote for Bush. Sorry, but a lot of the people voting for Nadar and other third party canidates, have Bush as their second choice. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they are stupid.
It has a great potential for backfiring on the Kerry campaign. People who are serious about bringing third parties into the spotlight could get a lot of more recognition by making sure their party had a strong representation in locked states and swing states. The possibility for deception is just enormous.
Course, every vote is going to be contested in swing states already. The lawyers are already geared up.
-
I'm sorry, WHERE exactly did we say we weren't going to vote before this came up?
I never claimed you did say that. I said that you (vote-swappers as a group) complain that the real electoral system isn't working, despite the fact that you haven't actually tried to use it.
Political activity is a whole lot more than just voting.
-
Okay, I have a question about the people who are against the "throw your vote away" rhetoric. If you know the person you want to vote for has zero chance of winning, how is it not throwing your vote away if you do vote for them?
For example, a guy in Elders quorum on Sunday said he was going to vote for the Constitution party candidate, and that "throwing your vote away" doesn't exist, that your vote always matters. If you vote for the guy who has zero chance of winning, what does it contribute except for a vote for...a guy who loses? At least if you are choosing between two people who both have a good chance of winning, you're influencing the outcome.
Of course people who don't vote for the top 2 still influence the outcome, if their votes otherwise would have gone to one of those top 2. Which is why instant-runoff elections are attractive to me.
But for me, in California, where Bush will probably lose by near 10 percent, why should I vote for Bush, even though I want him to win? (Well, theoretically speaking. I'm not ENTIRELY sure I want Bush to win, but that's not what I'm talking about.) Why would that not be throwing my vote away?
If we were under the district method, where a relatively small area can determine a single electoral vote, I would be more inclined to be politically active in that area.
-
Ben, you're cool, and thank you for posting this link. To everyone who thinks it's crap, shut the hell up. At least we're trying to work with an election system that is crappy and actually VOTING and trying to make a difference instead of throwing our vote away.
Take a deep breath and say to yourself "I'm going to be mature about this and not insult my firends because they don't agree with me".
Mustard is completly right on the system, you cannot spend you cannot spend 340 days not careing then all the sudden freak out when you don't like how things are going. I personaly don't like either cadidate much, but I'm still going to vote for the one that I agree with the most. I can't complain too much about who the 2 are since I did nothing to change that fact besides sitting on my butt watching news, and that dosen't count for much.
-
What actually throws your vote away is that you are not working within the real, effective system. You're not (correct me if I'm wrong) out donating your time to the party of your choice, volunteering for campaigns, actively participating in grassroots activities -- so that you might have a chance of swinging a real election.
I donated money to my party and plug it in my circle of people I know, but do no active campaigning beyond that. Does tha count? ;)
-
I donated money to my party and plug it in my circle of people I know, but do no active campaigning beyond that. Does tha count? ;)
Well it's better then the rest of us who didn't.
-
The Guardian would do stuff like that. Bunch of bleeding heart liberals, gah.
-
<Mode=Moderator> Note: from thsi point forward, everytime I see someone post somethign along the lines of "Shut the hell up" or a variant, the post will be immediately deleted. THat is NOT appropriate, in a political or another format. Now no more comments on that particular post.</Mode>
I have to say, on the whole "throwing your vote away" bit, I think you ARE throwing your vote away if you don't try to get the word out and get people to change their minds. People have free will. Just because someone is more popular in a location does not mean that popularity cannot change. But if all you're going to do is vote, and not say anything about it, at least to people you meet day to day, well then, yes, you're throwing your vote away. A 10% margin, as in the earlier example, is not that big. 10% can change in the course of a week or less. Plus polls are not perfectly accurate, and can, in fact, be completely wrong. Such a fatalistic attitude is what will hurt you.
And has everyone forgotten write-in votes? You have more options than even the third party candidates. There are MILLIONS of eligible persons. If enough people don't vote for the two main candidates, even if they don't all vote for the SAME alternative, that will be noticed, and will have an effect on future elections.
-
I know a guy who voted Liberal, because he liked Mark Latham and his policies, and hated John Howard.
Note to yank readers: The liberal party in Australia is headed by John Howard (who is an utter moron deserving of your contempt, and out Prime Minister.). The Labour party is headed by Mark Latham. (Who is also an utter moron, but at least has half a clue.)
-
If you know the person you want to vote for has zero chance of winning, how is it not throwing your vote away if you do vote for them?
Like I said earlier, you throw your vote away months before election day--you throw it away when you decide not to help your candidate win.
However, after sleeping on things, I apologize if my comments last night were taken rudely. I don't mean to offend. One of the best parts of the American government is that you can vote for whoever you want. I like to debate the theory and issues, but I certainly don't dislike people who disagree, and I don't want to damage any friendships.
(Okay, so I do hate Tage. But, can you blame me?)
-
Nah, can't really blame you for that, HoM. Man I hate that guy too.
-
Just to lighten the mood, here's some political humor I saw the other day. (I'm voting for Bush, as you can obviously tell, but I enjoy political jokes regardless of party.)
At the U there was a big poster that looked very much like an official campaign poster for the GOP. There was a picture of Bush and Cheney, smiling happily. Below them was the caption: "Why change horsemen halfway through the apocalypse?"
That's been making me laugh for days.
-
Because we need to have FOUR horsemen. Maybe that's an argument for Kerry.
-
The title of this thread sounds like a Whitney Houston song. No way am I going to post here, except to mock.
**mock mock mock
-
http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz/BrainTenYrs*.mov
-
My mom wanted to be involved in the republican caucus (I think that's the right word) that was going to choose the republican candidate for Utah's governor. However, she wasn't allowed in because she wanted to have Oleen Walker as the candidate. The party powers didn't, so they wouldn't let her be involved. So she was trying to let her voice be heard but wasn't given the option.
I personally think that we should have a "None of the above" option when voting. Then, if no candidate gets enough votes, all the parties have to start over and find new candidates that are more palatable to the american people. I know it will never happen and would probably not work even if it did, but I would still like the option.
-
...what an amazingly silly idea...
So you want to add the option to drag out the elections longer than they are, and make the new leaders the second choices of even their own parties?
-
Yeah, I think that such a none of the above selection would cause us to have a crappy, stable-as-a-2-ton-boulder-balanced-atop-a-needle-just-over-an-overripe-banana government like Italy's.
-
"Most of the people I know (small city in Idaho) just vote straight Republican because they don't have the time/energy/interest to find out who they would want to vote for for the issues. Most just figure one or the other will be better for the general economy. Americans just aren't responsible enough to become a true democracy."
This is the problem with not only a "true democracy" but also with our representative system. Too few people think anymore.
<partisan>I know lots of people that are very liberal and think John Kerry is the answer to their prayers. The only objection that I've heard any of them make to Bush is that they think he's a moron. And they say it with great vehemence. These same people overlook the fact that Kerry changed his position on the war in Iraq twice in the course of a single debate. And when I point it out they act like it doesn't matter.</partisan>
No one takes enough of an interest in the affairs of the country to become informed. We're all too busy playing games, watching movies and TV, partying, working, etc...
It seems to be a given now that one must turn to experts to get an opinion and that which experts you choose indicates your political preference/leaning. Most people reading this post (spriggan excluded:))are at least as smart as any expert and can master enough of the subject material in any given area to be able to make intelligent judgements, but no one does.
Why the heck not?
*I tend to place a large measure of blame on TV. The idiot box is justly named. Why read even a basic book on economics if you can sit down, crack a beer, and live vicariously through naked sweating men in masks and speedos pretending to wrestle. Or watch "real" people eat cockroaches. Or whatever else is on nowadays. And (I know this is a knife in the eye to everyone here, myself included) most of the fiction we're reading as a nation is not much better than TV.
-
I would tend to agree with most of what you said Skar. It amazes me how much people squander the freedom to vote, by not being informed.
There was an interesting column in the Salt Lake Tribune today talking about this very subject. He quotes a recent study done by the Cato institute: (here are some quotes so you don't have to follow the link if you don't want to...)
''Particularly significant is the fact that, on many issues, the majority is not only ignorant of the truth, but actively misinformed. For example, 61 percent believe that there has been a net loss of jobs in 2004, 58 percent believe that the administration sees a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, and 57 percent believe that increases in domestic spending have not contributed significantly to the current federal budget deficit.''
...
Widespread voter ignorance is not a recent phenomenon. One month after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, 57 percent of Americans had never heard of the architect of the takeover, Newt Gingrich, despite massive press coverage. In 1964, at the height of the Cold War, only 38 percent were aware that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO.
''Most of the time,'' writes Somin, ''only bare majorities know which party has control of the Senate, some 70 percent cannot name either of their state's senators and the vast majority cannot name any congressional candidate in their district at the height of a campaign.''
Somin then makes this shocking and depressing statement: ''Overall, close to one-third of Americans can be categorized as 'know-nothings' almost completely ignorant of relevant political information.''
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2430156
-
One thing that article points out, that contradicts Skar's word choice of "anymore" is that this ignorance is not new. Maybe I'm just too Chekovian in outlook, but people are pretty much the same as they've ever been.
-
more political humor. (ok, it's only political in that it features George W. Bush, from two different realities, in fact), but he's right, what could be more awesome (http://www.superosity.com/comics/sup20041021.gif)?
-
True. The more I study it the more I realize that the majority of Americans have never been informed or in any way interested in becoming involved.
For instance, did you know that less than 1% of fighting age males in the colonies fought in the revolutionary war? And that there were more Americans fighting with the British than with Washington? How about this. During the hard times at Valley Forge there was no shortage of food or warm clothing for the American people, just a shortage of people willing to extend Washington's army the credit needed to purchase them. Soldiers died of exposure at Valley forge within sight of food and warmth. Thank heaven these men were internally motivated.
So, SE you're right. It's an ongoing problem rather than a new one.
"Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves." ~D.H. Lawrence
-
I hate it when I'm pessimistic and right. I mean, I love the being right part. It's when I'm right about such depressing things.
-
and... another timely comic (http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/hedge/archive/images/hedge2004114644022.gif)
-
How's this for letting your voice be heard? (http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/images/getfuzzy2732240041025.gif)
-
So, a friend of mine say signs that read: "Bush and Kerry make me want to Ralph!"
-
Not happy with the candidates?
Perhaps this is the solution:
http://www.geocities.com/tantila/gandalf.html
I apologize in advance for any and all pop-ups.
-
All of you should see this weeks South Park, which is, obviously, about voteing. Though it's dealing with a school mascot election Stan I think reflects many of our feelings when he says "No, I think voteing is great, But I can't realy get excited about when my choices are a dusche and a turd."
And it makes fun of PETA, which is allwayse good for a laugh.