Do these voter registration campaigns bother anyone else? I am certainly for people registering to vote, but I am bothered by these groups (any group) who take the initiative in the run-up to the election to register as many voters as possible. It is plainly obvious that the desire is to register voters who will vote in a way that is predictable to the ones soliciting registration. If someone doesn't care enough or isn't smart or concerned enough to get themselves registered, I really don't want them voting particularlly. I don't want to count an uninformed vote particularly.
giddyup, I know you don't mean to, but between your general distaste for peaceful protest and now your distaste for voter registration, you come off as half resentful of some of our most important freedoms and rights as Americans. I don't care who's doing the registering. I'd prefer every single American voted, regardless of their education on the candidates and the issues. We have a situation now where less than half of our population is registered (I think that's still accurate) and less than half of those registered actually vote. That's pathetic. Anything that's done to get more of them to the polls is for the good. This is no time to go back to means testing.
Anything overdone wears out its welcome: CASE CLOSED ...get my drift? Those statistics are pathetic. How in the world are you thrilled by having the uninformed participating in the single most important act of a citizen in a democratic republic? An informed electorate keeps the pendulum swings of power reasonably narrow. An uninformed electorate is subject to being manipulated. I'm more concerned about the manipulation than the non-participation. In other words, if you can't participate nearly fully, don't participate at all, please! Of course, I guess I will have to hasten to point out that most of those uninformed voters are more likely to vote in a way that would please you. Am I incorrect in that observation?
I guess I fail to see what could possibly be the problem with registering people to vote. So is your theory that only votes from people who are "smart" or "concerned enough" or "informed" should be counted? Any thoughts on how we should measure adequate "motiviation to get registered" from a voter? I am taking time off work to do it, myself, and I am not telling anyone how to vote, or really discussing any of the politics. "Unlikely voters" will make or break this election in my opinion.
I know I'm out on the edge here. I like it there. Am I just cynical or are people who are active in voter registration targeting voters who are likely to vote in the fashion that they do? At some point everyone has been asked to be registered to vote. I don't have any problem with it during the "offseason" of elections. My objection is to the last minute registrations and bus rides that are only meant to tip the balance of the outcome rather than the more noble purpose of having more voters registered regardless of party affiliation.
I thought you were supposed to be anti-elite, giddy. This is off the top of my head and I'm sure my figures are wrong but if half the country's registered and half of them vote, the president is elected with the support of just over 12.5% of the country. You don't think that number should be higher? There are a lot of things that can be done to increase voter education, starting with more debates and government sponsored TV time in place of 30 second commercials. Your side generally opposes both, as they did with motor voter. The only conclusion I can draw from that (and from your suggestion that my side benefits from increased registration) is that you favor a low turnout whose main education is 30 second soundbites (and, of course, chain emails). I would like to see every American vote. I'd also like a vote of "no confidence" like Australia has so that voters aren't forced to choose between candidates they're dissatisfied with but could register a vote against the choices -- one that would count, unlike write-ins. The idea that people with no real interest in the election will vote just because they're registered is a bit of a paper tiger too. They might sign up, but they're not going to go to the polls unless they're motivated to do so. Whatever the case, your way's been tried before. It was called means testing and we got rid of it for a reason.
What is wrong with registering people to vote who will vote a certain way? What's the difference between that and trying to get people who are already registered to vote a certain way? Why shouldn't everyone use their right to vote? I definitely want one side to win, but the other side registers a lot of voters it still makes our democracy stronger.
<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones I thought you were supposed to be anti-elite, giddy.</b> If wanting people who give a rat's ass is elite, I guess I am... <b>This is off the top of my head and I'm sure my figures are wrong but if half the country's registered and half of them vote, the president is elected with the support of just over 12.5% of the country. You don't think that number should be higher?</b> Of course I do and I said so. <b>There are a lot of things that can be done to increase voter education, starting with more debates and government sponsored TV time in place of 30 second commercials. Your side generally opposes both, as they did with motor voter. The only conclusion I can draw from that (and from your suggestion that my side benefits from increased registration) is that you favor a low turnout whose main education is 30 second soundbites (and, of course, chain emails).</b> You haven't exactly denied my suggestion. Instead you point the long finger of ridicule. What's new? Chain emails are more about being therapeutic than than about increasing voter education. <b>I would like to see every American vote. I'd also like a vote of "no confidence" like Australia has so that voters aren't forced to choose between candidates they're dissatisfied with but could register a vote against the choices -- one that would count, unlike write-ins.</b> I would be happy if everyone voted too, so long as their votes weren't manipulated like I feel they are now-- probably by both sides but most clearly, to my knowledge, by the Democrats. <b>The idea that people with no real interest in the election will vote just because they're registered is a bit of a paper tiger too. They might sign up, but they're not going to go to the polls unless they're motivated to do so.</b> In these parts, they provide rides I've heard. All it takes is a little short-term motivation. <b>Whatever the case, your way's been tried before. It was called means testing and we got rid of it for a reason.</b> Aren't we about to enter into the McCain-Feingold "season?" Why not apply the same rule to voter registration. Democratic Republics require a responsible citizenry. I don't think it is too much to ask that those who are not responsible enough to take care of and consider and measure their own participation just be left out of it. I don't think that is elitist at all because it doesn't require some huge, monumental effort. Most of those folks manage to get their driver's licenses or their fishing licences ahead of time. Is that elitism too?
so you admit that your real reason for bringing this up is the converse then? that "informed" voters = republican. should we bring back literacy and land ownership requirements too?
Having said that, I am sure you have researched most every candidate on the ballot on every level for every election in which you have voted.
<b>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade What is wrong with registering people to vote who will vote a certain way?</b> Isn't it kind of like stuffing the all-star ballot box? You are trying to distort the outcome by hustling votes that would otherwise not have been cast. <b>What's the difference between that and trying to get people who are already registered to vote a certain way?</b> The difference is in the degree of participation that exists. As I said, I'm all for voter participation. It should be willful and deliberate and not manipulated. Most of these last minute registration drives seem like desperate efforts to tilt the outcome. <b>Why shouldn't everyone use their right to vote?</b> They should. My point is that "you" shouldn't use their right to vote. <b>I definitely want one side to win, but the other side registers a lot of voters it still makes our democracy stronger.</b> How is our democracy stronger if ill-informed votes are cast? Making educated choices makes democracy stronger. I now that this is very hard for me to express exactly. I honestly can't believe that anyone would want to argue against it. It seems intuitively obvious. When someone who doesn't even care casts a vote that negates your vote, doesn't it piss you off a bit? It's seem a bit of a silly analogy, but my comparison to stuffing the all-star ballot box probably comes closest.
I'd much prefer that more people stayed home than voted. Why you say? Most people are so caught up in the bread and circuses of our present day (pop culture) that they are woefully ignorant of issues or candidates. They care more about what J-Lo is doing or how many men Brittney is sleeping with than they do about the important issues of the day. To me, it should not be easy to register. You should have to make the effort to go to the courthouse to register instead of doing so when you get your driver's license. Also I think people need to pass some kind of competency test of basic civics before they get to enter the voting booth. It would get rid of these lowlifes who vote for the politician who promises them the most goodies.
Not nearly as well as I should have. In some instances I don't cast a vote when that is the case. I have never voted straight ticket nor do I intend to. I'd rather trust those decisions to those who care enough to know what they need to know. I'm not one of those people who thinks the US is going to hell in a handbasket if a Democrat wins even the Presidency. We have been well-served by banging back and forth in this ever-narrowing continuum. It's probably good for us that it is that way. I am dis-satisfied by Republicans. I am just itching to vote for a major Democratic candidate, but they keep screwing it up more than the Republicans....
When people who aren't informed vote, then they have a vested interest in the outcome. They may not have been informed this time, but if they believe they made a mistake in the vote they cast they might do more research next time. Also it weakens lobbyists power. If loobbyists and special interests can point to low voter turn out and say we only have to appeal to x(small number of voters) then why not screw over everyone else. If the turn out is large, then special interest power is reduced. Politicians will have to start paying more attention to the good of everyone and not just select groups that are regular voters.
Pretty sure he means "last minute votes for cigarettes" and the like. Besides how many C.E.O.'s are there? And how many are in which party? If you suggest that all C.E.O.'s are GOP types... then you are a little under informed.
