President Joe Biden

[Bigga]

I suspect that is just a cop out for 'generally can't be arsed' for whatever reason.

An awful lot of voter apathy can be put down to laziness. That whole 'my vote doesn't matter', or 'all politicians are the same' crowd are just taking the easy way out, rather than doing the legwork to understand just why their vote does matter.

Really?

This is what was floated a few days back to try and catch the 'cool' vibes from millennials rather than the message they're really wanting...



You understand the vapidness that goes on? When people are struggling, this what Dems latch on to...?

It's beyond pathetic.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I suspect that is just a cop out for 'generally can't be arsed' for whatever reason.

An awful lot of voter apathy can be put down to laziness. That whole 'my vote doesn't matter', or 'all politicians are the same' crowd are just taking the easy way out, rather than doing the legwork to understand just why their vote does matter.

Think about the time, energy, concentration and base intellectual understanding of issues and people (as well as how government functions) it takes to make informed voting decisions. Not everyone has any or all of these available to them. Hell, there have been times when I haven't -- in fact, every time I vote when there are initiatives on the CA state ballot. I often leave a few of them blank because I haven't had the time to make an informed choice. Same with voting for my sanitary district representatives ("pick 3 of 12" -- geez). Voting well is work. Some people don't want to put it in; others do but for whatever reason can't.

"They all suck" is a total cop out -- you KNOW that's laziness vs. "I just didn't have the time to make an informed choice."

In the case of the topic at hand, "they all suck" isn't only a stupid stance, it's turning a blind eye to evil.

 

[mat]

Really?

This is what was floated a few days back to try and catch the 'cool' vibes from millennials rather than the message they're really wanting...



You understand the vapidness that goes on? When people are struggling, this what Dems latch on to...?

It's beyond pathetic.

Both sides crave power for the wrong reasons. They've got US politics stitched up until the people say no and revolt.

270 odd years ago they did it to fuck off the Brits. Now they have to do it to drain their own swamp and the self serving politicians who make on it at from the demise of others.


Get fucking folks. One big orgy of all races and the privileged rich white males will be gone naturally.

 

[cjn]

I suspect that is just a cop out for 'generally can't be arsed' for whatever reason.

An awful lot of voter apathy can be put down to laziness. That whole 'my vote doesn't matter', or 'all politicians are the same' crowd are just taking the easy way out, rather than doing the legwork to understand just why their vote does matter.

A huge part of it is the electoral college. In the 2016 election only 15 of the 50 states had winning margins within 10%. For anyone on the fence about voting your state not being competitive is a strong disincentive.

Also you need to register, sometimes months in advance. And also we hold elections on Tuesdays for some reason and we deliberately reduce the amount of polling places in low income areas so that "undesirables" have to wait in really long lines.

Either that or it's because Kamala is wearing boots or something, lol.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Really?

This is what was floated a few days back to try and catch the 'cool' vibes from millennials rather than the message they're really wanting...



You understand the vapidness that goes on? When people are struggling, this what Dems latch on to...?

It's beyond pathetic.

Non-voting is a perfectly valid way to protest. You have the right to vote or not vote.

But in this case, when the very foundations of the democracy are under direct threat from a President that has been smashing constitutional/political norms since he was elected, a non-vote protest is utterly reprehensible and downright irresponsible.

 

[yankblue]

I suspect that is just a cop out for 'generally can't be arsed' for whatever reason.

An awful lot of voter apathy can be put down to laziness. That whole 'my vote doesn't matter', or 'all politicians are the same' crowd are just taking the easy way out, rather than doing the legwork to understand just why their vote does matter.

they also make it excruciatingly difficult to vote, and that's on purpose

election day is a tuesday. it's not a national holiday. polling is generally only open during business hours. in most states you can only vote at your designated polling place.

additionally, due to the electoral college, only about 5 states actually matter. what good is a red vote in california, or a blue vote in texas? what realistic purpose is any vote in montana or wyoming or delaware serving?

over time this causes apathy

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

they also make it excruciatingly difficult to vote, and that's on purpose

election day is a tuesday. it's not a national holiday. polling is generally only open during business hours. in most states you can only vote at your designated polling place.

additionally, due to the electoral college, only about 5 states actually matter. what good is a red vote in california, or a blue vote in texas? what realistic purpose is any vote in montana or wyoming or delaware serving?

over time this causes apathy

I agree that it does seem silly that Election Day is not a national holiday and that it can be difficult, although voting absentee has gotten far, far easier (the machinations of the current administration notwithstanding).

But while I understand the frustration folks have about the EC, and I agree it can cause apathy, I am not ready to call it anachronistic quite yet. The weightings may be off, and that may be important, as small states often punch above their weight. But I am not sure in the very long run it makes sense to abolish it. I am not sure I'd like 3 or 4 states determining the future of the Presidency, even if it is President I would like. And the EC is not static as migration patterns change over time. Colorado, as an example, used to be a solid Republican state, as did Washington. Some states in the South were reliably Democratic (albeit in the Dixiecrat days, although let's not open THAT can of worms). Texas is almost assuredly red this year but in 10 years may very well not be. As red as Montana is, MT has a Democratic governor (Steve Bullock, who was who I supported in the primary for President and may win his Senate race, though not likely).

 

[journolud]

You great big 'intellects' are STILL not addressing why there's almost 100M people that don't vote and why that is.

I'll offer this; they don't trust politicians have their best interests at heart.

That won’t be the reason the whole 100m don’t cote

 

[SWP's back]

That won’t be the reason the whole 100m don’t vote

For a start, only 58m people over the age of 18 didn’t vote. It only rises to 100m if you include children. Which would be moronic, obviously.

Side note is that 2016 saw the highest turnout for a general election. 2018 saw the highest voter turn out for a midterm and 2020 is expected to again next a record breaker. So talk of people being more turned off now than previously is also moronic.

 

[cjn]

I agree that it does seem silly that Election Day is not a national holiday and that it can be difficult, although voting absentee has gotten far, far easier (the machinations of the current administration notwithstanding).

But while I understand the frustration folks have about the EC, and I agree it can cause apathy, I am not ready to call it anachronistic quite yet. The weightings may be off, and that may be important, as small states often punch above their weight. But I am not sure in the very long run it makes sense to abolish it. I am not sure I'd like 3 or 4 states determining the future of the Presidency, even if it is President I would like. And the EC is not static as migration patterns change over time. Colorado, as an example, used to be a solid Republican state, as did Washington. Some states in the South were reliably Democratic (albeit in the Dixiecrat days, although let's not open THAT can of worms). Texas is almost assuredly red this year but in 10 years may very well not be. As red as Montana is, MT has a Democratic governor (Steve Bullock, who was who I supported in the primary for President and may win his Senate race, though not likely).

The flipside to this is that switching to a national popular vote would force the parties to moderate somewhat. If Republicans can't just fuck off California and New York they would actually have to try to win votes there, and vice versa for Dems in solid red states.

I dispute the notion that it even matters to be honest. If more people live in California they should have more of a say. Representation per person is so ridiculously far out of whack right now, compared to basically any other time in the country's history, that I'd argue it's way more of a threat to legitimacy than anything else at the moment.