#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?
Upvote
Upvoted
5
Downvote
Downvoted
voting 2012
posted in
Off Topic
#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?
#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?
#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?
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.
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.
Two of our more interesting ones:
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.
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.
I'm voting in MA even though I live in NY just so I can vote for Elizabeth Warren
I'm voting in MA even though I live in NY just so I can vote for Elizabeth Warren
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.
Also fuck one-issue voters.
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)
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)
Frankly though, I find these discussions boring. Far more interesting to me is why do people care about voter apathy?
If people don't care to vote, that makes the votes of the people who do care about the election even more important. In theory, everyone wins. Alternatively, the argument could be made that the higher the voter turnout, the better the governance. But empirically, that's simply not true. Voter turnout in the post-Reconstruction era up until the turn of the century was higher than anything we've ever had, but no one know is going to say those presidents did a good job. That's clearly not how people see it. Voter apathy is seen as a sign that Americans don't care about politics, and are more content sitting at home watching television than "changing the fate of this great American nation." This, to me, gets to the core of civic religion. Voting is seen as more than just pulling a level for one candidate or another, it's a tradition. It's a tradition that commemorates the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, a history of American activism, a tradition celebrates some form of egalitarianism and inclusion. Its "perfectly rational" functions really aren't the ones that matter to people. And this seems obvious. People vote with their heart, not with their minds.
I'd just like to finish off by stating that I'm not necessarily dismissive or supportive of any of these arguments. I don't mean to condescend towards the people who see an emotional value in voting, nor those who see emotional value in not voting. And neither did I intend to attack those who view the entire process "rationally," whatever that may mean here.
(Pt. 2/2)
Frankly though, I find these discussions boring. Far more interesting to me is why do people care about voter apathy?
If people don't care to vote, that makes the votes of the people who do care about the election even more important. In theory, everyone wins. Alternatively, the argument could be made that the higher the voter turnout, the better the governance. But empirically, that's simply not true. Voter turnout in the post-Reconstruction era up until the turn of the century was higher than anything we've ever had, but no one know is going to say those presidents did a good job. That's clearly not how people see it. Voter apathy is seen as a sign that Americans don't care about politics, and are more content sitting at home watching television than "changing the fate of this great American nation." This, to me, gets to the core of civic religion. Voting is seen as more than just pulling a level for one candidate or another, it's a tradition. It's a tradition that commemorates the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, a history of American activism, a tradition celebrates some form of egalitarianism and inclusion. Its "perfectly rational" functions really aren't the ones that matter to people. And this seems obvious. People vote with their heart, not with their minds.
I'd just like to finish off by stating that I'm not necessarily dismissive or supportive of any of these arguments. I don't mean to condescend towards the people who see an emotional value in voting, nor those who see emotional value in not voting. And neither did I intend to attack those who view the entire process "rationally," whatever that may mean here.
(Pt. 2/2)
If people don't care to vote, that makes the votes of the people who do care about the election even more important. In theory, everyone wins. Alternatively, the argument could be made that the higher the voter turnout, the better the governance. But empirically, that's simply not true. Voter turnout in the post-Reconstruction era up until the turn of the century was higher than anything we've ever had, but no one know is going to say those presidents did a good job. That's clearly not how people see it. Voter apathy is seen as a sign that Americans don't care about politics, and are more content sitting at home watching television than "changing the fate of this great American nation." This, to me, gets to the core of civic religion. Voting is seen as more than just pulling a level for one candidate or another, it's a tradition. It's a tradition that commemorates the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, a history of American activism, a tradition celebrates some form of egalitarianism and inclusion. Its "perfectly rational" functions really aren't the ones that matter to people. And this seems obvious. People vote with their heart, not with their minds.
I'd just like to finish off by stating that I'm not necessarily dismissive or supportive of any of these arguments. I don't mean to condescend towards the people who see an emotional value in voting, nor those who see emotional value in not voting. And neither did I intend to attack those who view the entire process "rationally," whatever that may mean here.
(Pt. 2/2)
Yeah Maple I'd like to see a proportional representational system too. And those are two of the major reasons I've heard for people giving for not wanting to vote either. A fellow classmate in one of my political science class said he's more closely aligned with Obama but he wouldn't vote for him because of religious and moral issues.
I think if you wanted to get more people involved in the political process that you would need the races to be more competitive, which isn't possible in some states because they favor one party so heavily over the other. Unless, more parties and candidates entered the race which isn't likely unless we change the voting systems and make it easier for new parties to form. As for voter apathy, I care about that not because of tradition but because I think the system would be better with more participation and more people to come up with new ideas to be implemented. Although that may not be the case as people are often uninformed when they vote, and as you said tend to vote with their hearts not minds. Although in another class I took many people said they don't vote because they feel unqualified and uninformed. So maybe at least a few people who are getting more involved after learning a little more will try to do their research before voting, but idk :/
Yeah Maple I'd like to see a proportional representational system too. And those are two of the major reasons I've heard for people giving for not wanting to vote either. A fellow classmate in one of my political science class said he's more closely aligned with Obama but he wouldn't vote for him because of religious and moral issues.
I think if you wanted to get more people involved in the political process that you would need the races to be more competitive, which isn't possible in some states because they favor one party so heavily over the other. Unless, more parties and candidates entered the race which isn't likely unless we change the voting systems and make it easier for new parties to form. As for voter apathy, I care about that not because of tradition but because I think the system would be better with more participation and more people to come up with new ideas to be implemented. Although that may not be the case as people are often uninformed when they vote, and as you said tend to vote with their hearts not minds. Although in another class I took many people said they don't vote because they feel unqualified and uninformed. So maybe at least a few people who are getting more involved after learning a little more will try to do their research before voting, but idk :/
I think if you wanted to get more people involved in the political process that you would need the races to be more competitive, which isn't possible in some states because they favor one party so heavily over the other. Unless, more parties and candidates entered the race which isn't likely unless we change the voting systems and make it easier for new parties to form. As for voter apathy, I care about that not because of tradition but because I think the system would be better with more participation and more people to come up with new ideas to be implemented. Although that may not be the case as people are often uninformed when they vote, and as you said tend to vote with their hearts not minds. Although in another class I took many people said they don't vote because they feel unqualified and uninformed. So maybe at least a few people who are getting more involved after learning a little more will try to do their research before voting, but idk :/
waefwaefwikipedia 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]
Those studies were flawed. The research was on rats for up to 90 days. New research is out and rats with GMO diets grow tumors and die after 580 or so days.
[quote=waefwaef][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][/quote]
Those studies were flawed. The research was on rats for up to 90 days. New research is out and rats with GMO diets grow tumors and die after 580 or so days.
Those studies were flawed. The research was on rats for up to 90 days. New research is out and rats with GMO diets grow tumors and die after 580 or so days.
matterteawaefwaefwikipedia 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]
Those studies were flawed. The research was on rats for up to 90 days. New research is out and rats with GMO diets grow tumors and die after 580 or so days.
Link to studies? Also, I doubt it applies to every GMO (I imagine it's mainly about corn like most studies).
[quote=mattertea][quote=waefwaef][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][/quote]
Those studies were flawed. The research was on rats for up to 90 days. New research is out and rats with GMO diets grow tumors and die after 580 or so days.[/quote]
Link to studies? Also, I doubt it applies to every GMO (I imagine it's mainly about corn like most studies).
Those studies were flawed. The research was on rats for up to 90 days. New research is out and rats with GMO diets grow tumors and die after 580 or so days.[/quote]
Link to studies? Also, I doubt it applies to every GMO (I imagine it's mainly about corn like most studies).
I voted no on 37.
Also waiting until 2014 for the prop 19 from 2010 to resurface without the BS part about it being legal to drive while high as fuck.
I voted no on 37.
Also waiting until 2014 for the prop 19 from 2010 to resurface without the BS part about it being legal to drive while high as fuck.
Also waiting until 2014 for the prop 19 from 2010 to resurface without the BS part about it being legal to drive while high as fuck.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.