or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 310

post #4636 of 5454


What could possibly be the downside to encouraging a high voter turnout??

post #4637 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post


What could possibly be the downside to encouraging a high voter turnout??

One downside: The dumb people, like the ones Jay Leno used to interview on the boardwalk, have a say.
post #4638 of 5454


Oh gotcha people who say dumb things 

post #4639 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

One downside: The dumb people, like the ones Jay Leno used to interview on the boardwalk, have a say.

A book by H L Hunt, Alpaca, addresses your concern,

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2000/09/25/editorial3.html

Old Hunt may have been eccentric but he had interesting ideas.
post #4640 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post


A book by H L Hunt, Alpaca, addresses your concern,

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2000/09/25/editorial3.html

Old Hunt may have been eccentric but he had interesting ideas.


And this applies to the 2016 presidential election in that........???

post #4641 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

A book by H L Hunt, Alpaca, addresses your concern,

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2000/09/25/editorial3.html

Old Hunt may have been eccentric but he had interesting ideas.

There is a natural selection going on with the clueless. They don't care about voting and don't know when the election takes place.

Unless rounded up and forced into buses or vans--by evil political hacks--they sit home and watch TMZ and say things like "YOLO."
post #4642 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post


Oh gotcha people who say dumb things 

You asked. I'm not favoring restrictions on voting. Any non-felon over 18 with a valid form of identification should be able to vote. I'm just glad that those who don't know what country they live in stay home instead.
post #4643 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post


What could possibly be the downside to encouraging a high voter turnout??

All things being equal, nothing. I just don't think our democracy is less vibrant because a group of people doesn't vote. There are some political scientists who believe that we vote too often which results in lower election voting rates - there is an inverse correlation between frequency of voting and voter turnout.
post #4644 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


All things being equal, nothing. I just don't think our democracy is less vibrant because a group of people doesn't vote. There are some political scientists who believe that we vote too often which results in lower election voting rates - there is an inverse correlation between frequency of voting and voter turnout.


So in what ways are things not equal ? Do you feel that a 50 odd%voter turnout is somehow more representitive  than, lets just say 70%.? If so why because i don't see it

post #4645 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post


So in what ways are things not equal ? Do you feel that a 50 odd%voter turnout is somehow more representitive  than, lets just say 70%.? If so why because i don't see it

I think that people who don't vote now don't vote because they don't care or are uninformed. Do we improve our democracy by the people who don't care/uninformed voting? I don't think so.

If you went from 50% of people engaged and educated (which not even the 50% of people voting are) to 70%, then sure, I think that is more representative of the population.

Again though, if the theory that frequency of elections and turnout is inversely related is correct, do we improve democracy when we decrease the amount of elections to increase turnout?
post #4646 of 5454
So what's more indicative of a vibrant and engaged democracy? A 90% voter turn out where 80% of those people have not a fucking clue, and are just voting (perceived) self interest or a 50% turn out and 90% of those voters are informed on the issues and voting their conscience in an earnest attempt to elect the folks they feel will best improve society? IMO voter turnout is only one metric people should think of in this conversation.

Listening to the talking heads, the Jonathan Grubers, those fuckers count on low information voters and this guy explained it with pride. IMO I'd much rather suppress the voting of these idiots than encourage it. Best case would be educated voters but I'm not nearly that pollyannaish.
post #4647 of 5454
Countries where you are forced to vote:

Argentina 18 43,024,374
Australia 18 22,507,617
Belgium 18 10,449,361
Bolivia 18 10,631,486
Brazil 18 202,656,788
Congo, Democratic
Republic of the 18 77,433,744
Costa Rica 18 4,755,234
Dominican Republic 18 10,349,741
Ecuador 18 15,654,411
Egypt 18 86,895,099
Greece 18 10,775,557
Honduras 18 8,598,561
Lebanon 21 5,882,562
Luxembourg 18 520,672
Mexico 18 120,286,655
Nauru 20 9,488
Panama 18 3,608,431
Paraguay 18 6,703,860
Peru 18 30,147,935
Singapore 21 5,567,301
Thailand 18 67,741,401
Uruguay 18 3,332,972

100% turnout seems to work well for them.
post #4648 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


I think that people who don't vote now don't vote because they don't care or are uninformed. Do we improve our democracy by the people who don't care/uninformed voting? I don't think so.

If you went from 50% of people engaged and educated (which not even the 50% of people voting are) to 70%, then sure, I think that is more representative of the population.

Again though, if the theory that frequency of elections and turnout is inversely related is correct, do we improve democracy when we decrease the amount of elections to increase turnout?


      Well this is all just speculation because there is no real way to measure voters who care,voters who are informed and voters who are both informed and care. I belive that if we can encourage more voters the ratios would not change appreciably while the net result would be at best a more representitive government and at worst a lessened sense of disinfranchisment.    I personally have never not voted in an election above the city level in my life and while more than a few of those elections did not go my way Ihave never suffered from this sense of alianation that seems to plague so many people these days.

post #4649 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

So what's more indicative of a vibrant and engaged democracy? A 90% voter turn out where 80% of those people have not a fucking clue, and are just voting (perceived) self interest or a 50% turn out and 90% of those voters are informed on the issues and voting their conscience in an earnest attempt to elect the folks they feel will best improve society? IMO voter turnout is only one metric people should think of in this conversation.

Listening to the talking heads, the Jonathan Grubers, those fuckers count on low information voters and this guy explained it with pride. IMO I'd much rather suppress the voting of these idiots than encourage it. Best case would be educated voters but I'm not nearly that pollyannaish.

Wrong side of history.
post #4650 of 5454

Wow arguments for the suppression of voting in the U S based on how informed and caring the voters are. According to whose standard? This is crazy beyond belief .Bring on the totalitarian dictators and theocracys cause thats the result of this kind of thinking                                       

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.