Voting USA 2012?

[Autumn]

Answer the question of where does the percentage change from meaningless to meaningful. I don't care if that's not the point of your argument, answer it anyway.

 

[Music Dragon]

I think, at least colloquially, "no meaning" and "practically no meaning" are pretty interchangeable. The fact that my vote has less than .0001% meaning, but that's still meaning!, is not really going to convince me my vote is meaningful. Because it's closer to meaningless.

Relative to a million votes, yes, but relative to the amount of time and effort it takes to vote...?

EDIT: Assume we're using SI units for meaning, time and effort.

 

[hopeandjoy]

Nader (Green party) instead of Gore (Democrats) in 2000. Kerry lost votes because he was the Romney of the Democrats (in 2004).

 

[Light]

Answer the question of where does the percentage change from meaningless to meaningful. I don't care if that's not the point of your argument, answer it anyway.

>_>

Let me say it this way. "Meaningful" is not a boolean (true/ false) value. It's a floating-point (decimal). How can you put such a complex concept in a binary box? It deserves to be treated as a more complicated entity. When does "Affection" cross over to "Love"? What's the threshold for "Right" to become "Wrong"? What degree of certainty do we need to "Know" something?

Relative to a million votes, yes, but relative to the amount of time and effort it takes to vote...?

EDIT: Assume we're using SI units for meaning, time and effort.

Haha.

Doesn't it normally take like 30 minutes on average, from the time you get in the car to the time you get home?

 

[Datura]

list of links

I concede that Barack Obama has done some less-than-favorable things, in addition to doing many things that have greatly benefitted the country. I don't mean to come off as an overly-enthusiastic Obama fanboy, but I feel like it's necessary to remember that the alternative is infinitely worse. Progressives, both self-identified and not, have an awful tendency to completely cannibalize their own. I'm experiencing first-hand what how a terrible corporate puppet can come in and fuck things up completely on a state level, and I'd really like the USA to at least pretend it wants to catch up to the rest of the first world. I think I'm preaching to the choir here, but you know.

That's pretty much every politician, ever. Also, the fact that you regard him as "a terrible human being" shows that you have been polarized by the media. :/

No, it isn't, and no, I haven't been. Please don't insult my intelligence like that. My ideology is not represented in the mainstream media whatsoever, which is incredibly frustrating.

 

[surskitty]

Also, the fact that you regard him as "a terrible human being" shows that you have been polarized by the media. :/

I am sure many people who are not terrible human beings do shit like this (tw for animal abuse) and this! (more tw for animal abuse)

Even if his politics weren't disgusting, I would still be unable to vote for him in good conscience. If somebody can't demonstrate empathy for animals, I sure as hell don't expect them to have empathy for other humans.


Voting in primaries and general elections on off-years tends to matter more than in presidential elections, but I don't really understand why you'd refrain from voting entirely. Refraining from voting for president when you hate them both, sure, but that's not the only position up for grabs.

 

[M&F]

So, enlighten me about one detail. Where I live, voting is compulsory, but you have two voting options that are basically equivalent to the reasons why somebody wouldn't vote -- the blank vote (equivalent to "I don't really care") and the null vote (equivalent to "all the candidates suck"). If the amount of null votes were to exceed the amount of candidate votes, however (too optimistic a scenario, given a widespread lack of political conscience, even among the educated), that would oblige the parties to launch new candidates; I don't know all too many of the details, but, there's that. Does American voting not have any similar mechanisms, wherein one would be allowed to call for a different set of options?

Also, this is completely uninformed, but if I lived up there I'd probably vote for Obama, if only because I've seen a lot of profoundly true quotes from him, and because the main reason for opposition towards him I see is incorrect (the economical snowball has been rolling ever since 9/11, so blaming the guy the guy who's been there only since it started having wildly visible effects doesn't hold up, specially because I'm not even sure whether any actual presidents can be blamed for the whole thing).

 

[surskitty]

So, enlighten me about one detail. Where I live, voting is compulsory, but you have two voting options that are basically equivalent to the reasons why somebody wouldn't vote -- the blank vote (equivalent to "I don't really care") and the null vote (equivalent to "all the candidates suck"). If the amount of null votes were to exceed the amount of candidate votes, however (too optimistic a scenario, given a widespread lack of political conscience, even among the educated), that would oblige the parties to launch new candidates; I don't know all too many of the details, but, there's that. Does American voting not have any similar mechanisms, wherein one would be allowed to call for a different set of options?

Right.

 

[Tarvos]

I don't envy America, represented by two parties of which one is right-wing and the other one is batshit insane. It's like tangoing with the devil and Hitler at the same time. Mainstream left-wing politics are totally unrepresented in the US, which leads to a very one-sided voting system and a sadly underrepresented part of the population who cannot identify with any particular party at all.

I am not a US citizen and thus don't have voting rights in your country, but I can imagine it being a hassle when the choice is between a turd and a moldy turd covered in flies. I know you can vote for other things than president, but it's not exactly as if Ralph Nader is a majority in Congress either, so effectively with the two-party image and investment monopoly you're basically regressing. I would still vote Democrat though, likely, because having a Republican is like having an adherent of the Brothers Grimm fairytale books running Germany.

That being said I don't endorse extremely left-wing political views either and don't want to live in a communist or overly socialist state. I prefer centre-left liberal democratism where people can do what they want, within reason, but the provisions are there for people who are somehow disabled or cannot work and function in the normal societal channels. But most of all I just think the government needs to focus on controlling things it can actually do something with:

- provide health care for everyone, even the people who couldn't normally afford it
- provide free, excellent, secular education for everyone
- create an investment climate in which companies are free to innovate and develop new products and take advantage of market mechanisms, but carefully controlling these mechanisms so greed can always be dammed
- create solid environmental legislation so we can pass on the world to our kids
- collect a flat tax percentage so that everyone, percentagewise, pays the same part of their wages to tax. For the poor you can then subsidize where needed.

 

[Momo(th)]

Why?

Overspending, mainly.

 

[hopeandjoy]

There was no split in 2004, just in 2000.

 

[opaltiger]

So, enlighten me about one detail. Where I live, voting is compulsory, but you have two voting options that are basically equivalent to the reasons why somebody wouldn't vote -- the blank vote (equivalent to "I don't really care") and the null vote (equivalent to "all the candidates suck"). If the amount of null votes were to exceed the amount of candidate votes, however (too optimistic a scenario, given a widespread lack of political conscience, even among the educated), that would oblige the parties to launch new candidates; I don't know all too many of the details, but, there's that. Does American voting not have any similar mechanisms, wherein one would be allowed to call for a different set of options?

Huh. That is pretty cool. Where do you live?

I really, really wish people were given the option to vote either for a candidate or against a candidate. Mathematically it would work out the same, and you wouldn't have to vote for a lesser evil - only against a greater one.

Also, re: the meaning of a single vote: the closest ever result in a US election for national office was two votes. A single vote can make a difference. It is fallacious to say your vote has no meaning simply because it is probable that your vote won't change the result.

 

[Dannichu]

The thing is, Obama is not a good choice. He's the lesser of the two evils. In presidential elections, I'd vote for him because I have no choice; any third party candidate I pick is going to lose, but I would not be happy about voting for him.

I have a similar thing in my local election. My constituency is almost 50% Conservative and 50% Liberal Democrat (The Tories are in at the moment, but got there by a margin of about 400 votes). I voted LibDem because a) our local LibDem MP is actually pretty cool, and b) I hate the Tories and all they stand for, and although there were some other options I could've voted for (like Green, which I absolutely agree with), I went with the party that had the best chance of beating the Tories.

Like I said, the Tories ended up winning in my constituency anyway, but now I feel dirty for voting LibDem because they teamed up with the Tories to run the government (gross oversimplification ahoy!) and have turned their backs on pretty much everything they said they'd do in their campaign, like university tuition fees (although they sort of have the excuse of the rules changing a bit when they teamed up with the Tories... the Tories wrecking the NHS after campaigning with promises like this just proves that they're the scumbags they've always been). There's no way on earth the Green party would ever win in my area, but I'd feel a whole lot better having voted for them than the backstabby LibDems.

TL;DR: I have the option, where I vote, to vote for a good party like the Greens, but I made the mistake of voting for a lesser-of-two-evils party and feel bad about it.

 

[goldenquagsire]

Like I said, the Tories ended up winning in my constituency anyway, but now I feel dirty for voting LibDem because they teamed up with the Tories to run the government (gross oversimplification ahoy!) and have turned their backs on pretty much everything they said they'd do in their campaign, like university tuition fees (although they sort of have the excuse of the rules changing a bit when they teamed up with the Tories... the Tories wrecking the NHS after campaigning with promises like this just proves that they're the scumbags they've always been). There's no way on earth the Green party would ever win in my area, but I'd feel a whole lot better having voted for them than the backstabby LibDems.

I like to think that the Lib Dems did what they did for the greater good. They scarified their integrity and honour (and any chances of re-election) in order to mitigate as best as they could against the worst excesses of a Conservative government. For example, Lib Dems regularly cockblock Tory policies such as the new surveillance laws, and because they're members of a coalition government they can actually throw a spanner in the works, whereas if the Conservatives controlled a minority government then they could do willy nilly without any meaningful opposition.

Better to be part of the system and try your best to change it, than to stand principled but ineffectually outside of it. That said, I can understand why one would feel betrayed by them (I was too young to vote in the general election by a few months, god damn it, but I would have voted Lib Dem. In those weeks running up to the election, it really felt like they had a chance!).

Not relevant to US elections at all, but I don't know who to support for the next election really. Conservatives probably won't get my vote: the economic sense of their policies is something I'm willing to debate but, among many things, their idealogical assault on the NHS, their disgraceful attitude towards the disabled and the general sliminess of Cameron's "HURR DURR WE'RE A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY MORAL FAMILY VALUES YAH" rhetoric puts me off them. Outside of boroughs with an established MP, the Lib Dems probably won't see a chance of election any time soon for many years now (that said, I'm still willing to tactical chunder vote like Dannichu if a Lib Dem has a better chance of keeping out a Tory, UKIP or BNP candidate than Labour). Realistically, unless I move to Brighton that leaves me with Labour. Their policies aren't amazing and their leader looks like an incompetent work experience boy, but they really are the lesser of two evils.

...and I guess there's also a bit of tribal loyalty. Which shouldn't really be influencing my political leanings, but it's still a *thing*! I might be slowly drifting a little more to the right, but when my mum and her brothers are all Labour voters since the 70s (my mum even worked for her local party branch in her 20s!), when my cousins swear by their Labour allegiance, when most of my friends all want to vote Labour even though they agree that the party's gone downhill since Blair (when I told my best friend that I was beginning to agree with certain aspects of Conservative economic theory, you should have seen the look of horror on his face!), it's hard not to feel a sense of fraternity.

 

[M&F]

Huh. That is pretty cool. Where do you live?

I really, really wish people were given the option to vote either for a candidate or against a candidate. Mathematically it would work out the same, and you wouldn't have to vote for a lesser evil - only against a greater one.

Brazil. Unfortunately, though, as I've alluded, most people don't quite realize the existance of that system, so instead, people think they can sabotage the system with hipster votes (i.e. into candidates with zero political background, fame coming from other endeavors and no pretense of good politics whatsoever) and that actually ends up breeding more corruption.

Also, the idea of voting against a candidate would be excellent -- after all, disliking something doesn't imply having a better idea.

 

[Tarvos]

...and I guess there's also a bit of tribal loyalty. Which shouldn't really be influencing my political leanings, but it's still a *thing*! I might be slowly drifting a little more to the right, but when my mum and her brothers are all Labour voters since the 70s (my mum even worked for her local party branch in her 20s!), when my cousins swear by their Labour allegiance, when most of my friends all want to vote Labour even though they agree that the party's gone downhill since Blair (when I told my best friend that I was beginning to agree with certain aspects of Conservative economic theory, you should have seen the look of horror on his face!), it's hard not to feel a sense of fraternity.

Social and economic policies don't have to go hand in hand. You can be fiscally conservative and socially progressive at the same time, which is why I voted for D66 (Democraten 66) last time, which is basically the Dutch version of the Lib-Dems

 

[goldenquagsire]

Social and economic policies don't have to go hand in hand. You can be fiscally conservative and socially progressive at the same time, which is why I voted for D66 (Democraten 66) last time, which is basically the Dutch version of the Lib-Dems

The problem is, there isn't really a mainstream party in the UK political system which subscribes to socially progressive/fiscally conservative politics. If I want to support small state policies, I have to vote Conservative (or I suppose UKIP, but I find their Little Englander rhetoric just too unbearable to endorse). On the other hand, if I want to support progressive social policy I have to vote Labour (or some third-party candidates depending on what constituency I'm in). You can't really have your cake and eat it in those circumstances.

Generally though, I guess I'd place more importance on the social policy side of things. I'd rather put up with higher taxes and some questionable government spending than see the NHS dismantled/privatised, for example. So, I throw my lot in with Labour and hope that they do something about the appalling levels of corporate tax avoidance in this country. Maybe then my future tax burden won't be as painful. :)

 

[Tarvos]

Why don't you just keep voting Lib Dems?

 

[goldenquagsire]

Why don't you just keep voting Lib Dems?

they don't really represent my views tbh. :P

although really it depends on the individual candidate! if the Labour candidate standing for MP in my constituency is a known shit but the Lib Dem (or even, god forbid, a Green or independent) candidate is a better alternative then I'd go for them.

 

[Dannichu]

I like to think that the Lib Dems did what they did for the greater good. They scarified their integrity and honour (and any chances of re-election) in order to mitigate as best as they could against the worst excesses of a Conservative government. For example, Lib Dems regularly cockblock Tory policies such as the new surveillance laws, and because they're members of a coalition government they can actually throw a spanner in the works, whereas if the Conservatives controlled a minority government then they could do willy nilly without any meaningful opposition.

Mmm, and in fairness, the LibDems did try the vote reform. Which failed (in no small part because the Tories and Labour threw their full weight into telling everyone that it would cost more money than has ever existed), but my family and I were watching coverage of the French election that's taking place at the moment and being envious of their system (which isn't perfect, but is much better than ours).

How socially conservative the UK Conservative party is at the moment is difficult to judge but kind of hilarious to watch. Cameron keeps trying to shake the Tories' image as 'the nasty party' by going on record with statements like "I don't support marriage equality in spite of being a conservative, I support marriage equality because I'm a conservative", and then two-thirds of Tory MPs freak the hell out.