Huzzah! Ι asserted my right to vote!

Textkit is a learning community- introduce yourself here. Use the Open Board to introduce yourself, chat about off-topic issues and get to know each other.
Post Reply
User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Huzzah! Ι asserted my right to vote!

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:42 pm

Muahahaha!

Of course, I wish I could have voted in the primaries too ... they are fairly important around here.

On the other hand, I had the good fortune turn eighteen in a year with interesting things going on. There were five double-sided pages of ballot to fill out.

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Re: Huzzah! Ι asserted my right to vote!

Post by annis » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:14 pm

GlottalGreekGeek wrote:On the other hand, I had the good fortune turn eighteen in a year with interesting things going on.
At my polling place this morning there was a family in line. It was the son's first time voting, so they took pictures of him getting his little slip of paper from the poll workers. There was applause.
There were five double-sided pages of ballot to fill out.
:shock: And I thought it was absurd I was voting on more than two referenda.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

User avatar
thesaurus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:44 pm

Re: Huzzah! Ι asserted my right to vote!

Post by thesaurus » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:25 pm

I'm such a responsible citizen that I voted early!
annis wrote: :shock: And I thought it was absurd I was voting on more than two referenda.
In Colorado this year we have seven referenda and seven amendments at stake.

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:16 am

Smart, witty, AND socially responsible! My congrats to your parents, GGG.

~PeterD
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Carola
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 12:34 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by Carola » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:55 am

We have compulsory voting in Australia - or should I say it is compulsory to turn up to vote unless you are infirm, certifiable or some other reasonable excuse. You don't actually have to vote for anyone when you turn up to the polling booth (although most people do). I know some say that only those who feel strongly should vote, but I do rather feel that if you are a citizen you should at least make some attempt to decide the fate of your country. No system is perfect and I am sure we get the same number of good and bad politicians as anywhere else, but at least we all had to make a decision.
I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.
phpbb

Kinadius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:02 pm
Contact:

Post by Kinadius » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:45 am

I'm 22, and this was my third time voting in a national election. :)
phpbb

User avatar
edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Re: Huzzah! Ι asserted my right to vote!

Post by edonnelly » Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:00 pm

GlottalGreekGeek wrote:Of course, I wish I could have voted in the primaries too ... they are fairly important around here.
I'm surprised you couldn't vote in the primaries. I turned 18 in October of a presidential election year and was allowed to vote as a 17 year old in the primary (in May or June). Lots of people still don't believe I was allowed to vote as a 17-year-old, but I was. There were other things on the ballot, though, and I was allowed to vote for all of them, too. It's possible it varies state-to-state (I was in Ohio).
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

User avatar
Agrippa
Textkit Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:56 am

Post by Agrippa » Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:48 pm

I'm eighteen and didn't vote. To a lifetime of not voting!

User avatar
perispomenon
Textkit Fan
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Mijdrecht
Contact:

Post by perispomenon » Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm

Agrippa wrote:I'm eighteen and didn't vote. To a lifetime of not voting!
In the Netherlands we vote on 22 November, so quite soon. I don't know who I'll vote for (I'm a "floating" voter), but I will most definitely vote.

Why would you like to celebrate a lifetime of non voting?

Kynetus Valesius
Textkit Fan
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:34 pm
Location: Washington DC

Post by Kynetus Valesius » Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:22 am

I voted. I feel like the republicans must be halfway glad today! At least they are out of their misery.

I used one of the new touch sensitive screens and chose to vote in spanish which was easy enough until i came to the numerous state and county referenda where I was completely lost - it probably would have been the same for me in English. Instead of just not voting on the referenda I decided to oppose them all! I did not stay up to watch at returns as I couldn't really have cared less.

But boy oh boy were they celebrating in my office today - I work for a major US-based environmental advocacy group which is supposed to be non-partisan but in point of fact everybody who works there is a dem except for one closeted fundamentalist hindu right-winger - namely myself. I have been completely surrounded by liberals only for years which somehow has pushed me in the opposite direction privately.
phpbb

ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by ingrid70 » Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:19 am

perispomenon wrote:
Agrippa wrote:I'm eighteen and didn't vote. To a lifetime of not voting!
In the Netherlands we vote on 22 November, so quite soon. I don't know who I'll vote for (I'm a "floating" voter), but I will most definitely vote.
Same here. I know who I'll definitely *not* vote for, though ;-).

Personally, I think Americans have an extra reason to vote and hopefully vote wisely: American politics greatly influence world politics.

Ingrid, never missed a vote since I turned eighteen.

Iulianus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Voorburgi
Contact:

Post by Iulianus » Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:17 am

ingrid70 wrote:
perispomenon wrote:
Agrippa wrote:I'm eighteen and didn't vote. To a lifetime of not voting!
In the Netherlands we vote on 22 November, so quite soon. I don't know who I'll vote for (I'm a "floating" voter), but I will most definitely vote.
Same here. I know who I'll definitely *not* vote for, though ;-).

Personally, I think Americans have an extra reason to vote and hopefully vote wisely: American politics greatly influence world politics.

Ingrid, never missed a vote since I turned eighteen.
This will be the first time I'll get to vote on national elections - last year's EU-referendum was fun enough for my first voting experience, though.

So what parties are you guys definitely *not* voting on? My bet is the VVD (a 'liberal' party for the other textkittens - at least in name) will be losing a lot of voters this time around, to either smaller, right-wing parties (PVV, EenNL) or CDA ('christian' center party).

I'm most definitely NOT voting on PVDA (center-left-wing party); I haven't heard any decent, long-term proposal since the election-hype started come from this party.
phpbb

ingrid70
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by ingrid70 » Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:56 am

I will vote left-wing. Definitely not CDA or VVD, either van der Hoeven back or Verdonk new on education is causing me nightmares ;-). With an autistic child in a special school I have a vested interest in keeping special schools as they are.


Ingrid

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Post by Amadeus » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:41 pm

ingrid70 wrote:Personally, I think Americans have an extra reason to vote and hopefully vote wisely: American politics greatly influence world politics.
And how! I stayed up late waiting for the results, and woke up early to find out the good news. Let's see if the dems really can make this a safer not-so-polarized world.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:04 pm

"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote in a national election."---Bill Vaughn
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly » Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:41 pm

PeterD wrote:"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote in a national election."---Bill Vaughn
I think the "apathy" angle may be overplayed a little. Talking to the officials at my precinct (while waiting in line to vote) I learned that at the last national election our precinct had 94% of registered voters show up to vote. To hear the media talk at times you'd think that number was well below 50%.
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

swiftnicholas
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by swiftnicholas » Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:23 pm

edonnelly wrote:To hear the media talk at times you'd think that number was well below 50%.
I think the number to which you refer is the percentage of the voting-age population that shows up to the polls, which hovers around 50% for presidential elections, and is more like 35% for national midterm elections, if I recall correctly. I consider that very poor for any kind of democracy, and especially for a nation who wants to spread democracy abroad, and so presumably considers its system exemplary.

Carola wrote:We have compulsory voting in Australia - or should I say it is compulsory to turn up to vote unless you are infirm, certifiable or some other reasonable excuse.
For a long time I didn't like the idea of mandatory voting, but I've changed my mind, and not because I think it would bring an outcome more to my liking. I think we can fairly demand certain basic duties of our citizens, like paying taxes and voting. Like they say, freedom isn't free, and voting is relatively easy. And it's hard to deny that it would make our representative democracy more democratic and more representative.

Carola, I'd be interested to hear about how exactly you cast your votes in Australia. I think I've heard that you use some version of a weighted voting system, which are statistically superior for gauging opinions. I think the simplest form is to rank the candidates in order of preference, which allows for more complex analysis of data, and for a longer list of candidates without loss of accuracy or quota.

User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:01 pm

Well, a few years ago in San Francisco they introduced ranked voting (re-introduced, I should say - they had it many years ago, but they scrapped it because of endless scandals behind mis-counting the votes, according to the oral history) where you would list your first, second, and third choice candidate. This of course only applied to local elections. It confused the heck out of the population, and the result was that there were far more candidates running than in previous elections because people who thought they wouldn't have a chance in a normal election thought they could maybe squeeze in though this weird system (ironically, that prooved false, since the dramatic increase in candidates running reduced each individual candidate's chance). In my own district there were I think around 27 candidates running for supervisor. Local elections used the same ranked-choice system again this year, but since all of the local offices had only 1 candidate running, it was impossible to state a second or third choice.

While I am happy about the Democratic victory, I can't say I had too much to do with it - both my local congressman (Tom Lantos) and local senator (Dianne Feinstein) were incumbant Democrats who had served since I had the foggiest notion of politics, who the Republicans weren't even bothering to fight, and both recieved over 60% of the vote.

swiftnicholas
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by swiftnicholas » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:33 pm

Congrats on your first voting experience GGG.

Note: I wrongly used the term "weighted voting" above. I can't think of the proper term that my statistics book used.

I don't understand what could possibly be confusing or weird about ranking your choices. I know some dullwitted people who manage quite easily to rank their favorite things for amusement.

I'm certainly not an expert in all of this, but from what I remember, I don't think an individual's statistical chances are reduced at all by an increase in candidates, so long as you can rank as many as you like. I think the ranked voting system would in fact give more people a chance, but only if they had genuine support. And there are other methods with similar advantages. I wonder if there are any statisticians or political scientists here who have studied this.

User avatar
Agrippa
Textkit Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:56 am

Post by Agrippa » Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:39 pm

perispomenon wrote:
Agrippa wrote:I'm eighteen and didn't vote. To a lifetime of not voting!
Why would you like to celebrate a lifetime of non voting?
Several reasons. Voting only encourages politicians, I think there's a virtue to not concerning oneself with politics, and like Vidal said, we have a nation with one political party with two right wings.

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:12 pm

Well, although voting is not exactly compulsory and not exactly non-compulsory in Greece anymore (you have supposedly some penalties such as not being able to get a passport for some time but they never, ever enforced (? wonder if that's the right verb to use), I always vote.

The logic of "it only encourages politicians" doesn't suit my all that well to tell you the truth. I guess I had too much of the ancient Greek logic instilled in me by ma and da from an early age (they are both fierce advocates of the obligation dash right of one to vote).

Anyway, if I didn't vote I wouldn't have the right to grumble about our politicians, our demagogues, the stupidity of my fellow Greeks, or anything of a kind as I see it. If I chose to stay out of the public life (δημόσιος βίος) how could I then sort of sit in my little home-made ivory tower and pass judgement? Without trying, to do what I think is right?

There's always a little party or an independent candidate one can vote for, there's always the "αντίπαλον δέος" (can someone translate that "thukydidian" phrase for me?") that one can vote some times to "balance things out" etc.

Anyway, in the last elections, we got people (as always) who chose to vote "blank" (I don't know if that's a choice in all countries but here you can choose to vote "blank" or, in other words, none) and this is sending a better message than not voting. You say "I care enough to vote but I don't like any of you guys". Not voting, for me, sends the message of either "I don't care" or "I consider myself a little tiny humble being and you are oh so powerful and what can I do?".

Sorry for the long tirade but, as you can understand, this is something I feel very strongly about. :oops:

P.S. Sorry for the many mistakes I bet this post is peppered with.

User avatar
perispomenon
Textkit Fan
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
Location: Mijdrecht
Contact:

Post by perispomenon » Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:21 pm

Hi IreneY,

I was just wondering how to bring across what you just posted :-)

Not voting because voting encourages politicians, I'm still brewing over that one. I just think that such a statement must be flawed, but I can't put my finger on it yet.

User avatar
Agrippa
Textkit Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:56 am

Post by Agrippa » Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:17 am

That was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek comment, but whatever. I guess what I tried to say is that were I to vote for party X, party X would assume that all the dirty tactics, all the lies, all the corporate bribes, and all of that disgusting business worked on me, and would thus probably do more of it to guarantee my vote. If I vote I'm supporting people I just don't want to support.

Carola
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 12:34 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by Carola » Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:27 am

swiftnicholas wrote:
Carola wrote:We have compulsory voting in Australia - or should I say it is compulsory to turn up to vote unless you are infirm, certifiable or some other reasonable excuse.
For a long time I didn't like the idea of mandatory voting, but I've changed my mind, and not because I think it would bring an outcome more to my liking. I think we can fairly demand certain basic duties of our citizens, like paying taxes and voting. Like they say, freedom isn't free, and voting is relatively easy. And it's hard to deny that it would make our representative democracy more democratic and more representative.

Carola, I'd be interested to hear about how exactly you cast your votes in Australia. I think I've heard that you use some version of a weighted voting system, which are statistically superior for gauging opinions. I think the simplest form is to rank the candidates in order of preference, which allows for more complex analysis of data, and for a longer list of candidates without loss of accuracy or quota.
Yes, we have a rather complex system of "preferences" which means you can number each candidate in order of preference. You can also just put a "1" next to a candidate's name if you want, this makes it less confusing for voters in Senate elections when there may be 20-30 candidates standing. We still use the good old paper voting form - slow but at least it doesn't break down! But then again our population is small enough to handle this, in USA this could be a logistical nightmare.
We handle problems with voters not being able to attend polling booths by having postal votes or absentee votes for those on holidays etc. They do actually check up on who hasn't voted (and you can be fined for this), but the Electoral commission is reasonable if you have a good excuse - illness, death in the family etc. (I have had this happen)
With all this we still get idiotic politicians and scandals - but at least we can all take the collective blame! It does tend to minimise extreme left or right wing politics, it's no use getting all your allies to vote you into power when everyone id going to vote anyhow.
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:50 am

IreneY wrote: There's always a little party or an independent candidate one can vote for, there's always the "αντίπαλον δέος" (can someone translate that "thukydidian" phrase for me?") that one can vote some times to "balance things out" etc.
Would that be voting in order to promote greater accountability on the part of the government by having a strong opposition?
Maybe then it could be translated as "balance of power."
IreneY wrote: Sorry for the long tirade but, as you can understand, this is something I feel very strongly about. :oops:
No need to feel ":oops:" about that.
IreneY wrote: P.S. Sorry for the many mistakes I bet this post is peppered with.
I am always amazed how good the English is of you and others for whom English is not the native language.
The only thing I noticed is (and you questioned it yourself)
...but they never, ever enforced (? wonder if that's the right verb to use)...
You did not supply an object for "enforced."
"They never enforced IT. " Or; "They never enforced THIS RULE."

User avatar
edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:17 pm

swiftnicholas wrote:I think the number to which you refer is the percentage of the voting-age population
That's right. They try to skew the numbers by using % of VAP (voting age population) instead of % of VEP (voting eligible population). For example, in California more than 20% of the VAP is ineligible to vote because they are not citizens. The non-citizenship rate is not that high everywhere (closer to 9% nationwide), but there are also other reasons besides non-citizenship for ineligibilty (such as prior felony conviction, etc.).
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

swiftnicholas
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by swiftnicholas » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:02 pm

Hi edonnelly, that's a very important point that you make. I was actually (wrongly) using the terms synonymously, but now that you mention it, I think the term I've heard more often is "eligible voters". I'll have to pay more attention to that in the future. A quick search on the internet (dangerous, I know) seemed to suggest that the nationwide difference in turnout between these two categories is just a few percentage points, see here, and notice the excel spreadsheet with stats from 1980-2006 (and their projected turnout rates for 2006 here). Sadly, NY seems to be one of the lowest. But, in any case, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the percentage of registered voters who turn up is under 50%, which was my original point. And you seem to use the word "they" in a very general sense. Do you mean to say that all of the media does this? What do you think the motivation would be for deliberately skewing these numbers? I'm more inclined to think it's sloppiness, where it does occur.

I'm glad to see that at least some people are critical of the statistics that are thrown around so lightly, and sometimes deceptively.

Best, N.

User avatar
Fabiola
Textkit Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:31 am

Post by Fabiola » Mon Nov 13, 2006 5:26 pm

I wasn't able to vote this year (turned 18 just a few weeks ago and then I forgot to register!), but I'm sure I will in 2008.

Agrippa- I agree that politicians tend to be two-faced unprincipled con-men. Politics distress me more than anything else, and I tend to want to just ignore it all; but I don't think becoming apathetic about the situation is going to make it change for the better! As citizens of our country we have a responsibilty for its welfare, and I think we should vote- even if only for the "lesser of the evils".

I do think that there are probably some politicians in obscure third parties that would stand by their principles. It's true they probably don't have much chance of winning though.

We seem to be stuck in a political mire not unlike the ones the Romans were almost continually in! Do you think the situation calls for a dictator? ;) :P
phpbb

User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:43 pm

Actually, doing research about the third-party candidates in this election decreased my opinion of third-party candidates in general. I was no happy about the main candidates for the governorship election, so I went and looked up the third-party candidates. Then I discovered that I like the third-party candidates less than the main candidates. So I went to the last resort - I researched the write-in candidates (you can't write in anybody's name in a write-in - your vote will only count if you write-in one of the approved write-in candidates). The write-in candidates were even worse than the third-party candidates. I finally, after saying "ARGHHH!" enough times, made up my mind who the least evil candidate was - but I knew that no matter what happened in the govenor race, I would not be happy. All I hope is that somebody like Villaraigosa runs for governor in 2010 (or what I think Villaraigosa is - I admit I haven't researched him very thoroughly, and perhaps I would like him a lot less if I did research him, but what little I've heard about him inclines me to think he would make a better governor than any of the candidates who ran in this election).

I agree that third-party candidates are more likely to stick by their principles. That is a bad thing if you strongly diagree with their principles, and since most third-party candidates are political radicals, and I am a political centrist, I usually disagree with their principles.

EDIT : Being a successful politician requires a certain degree of two-facedness, breaking pledges, etc. I accept that. I would rather have an intelligent politician who engages in mild corruption than a stupid politician with rock-solid, unchangeable notions. I would vote Boss Tweed over Adolf Hitler any day (though Boss Tweed was involved in a lot more than "mild corruption"). Now there is a big difference between, say, accepting illegal campaign contributions from corporations, and letting a city burn down so you can get more relief money from outside, and thus get more money to siphon towards your personal funds. The first type of corruption, while unsavory, and a minus in favor of that politician, is forgivable. The latter is not forgivable.
Last edited by GlottalGreekGeek on Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
edonnelly
Administrator
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Music City, USA
Contact:

Post by edonnelly » Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:57 pm

swiftnicholas wrote:Do you mean to say that all of the media does this? What do you think the motivation would be for deliberately skewing these numbers? I'm more inclined to think it's sloppiness, where it does occur.
Well, I'm sure some of it is sloppiness, but I think it makes a better story to say that people aren't voting than it does to say that they are, and the smaller you can get that voting percentage the more compelling the story. Also, the VAP numbers are much easier to get and are more reliable than the VEP, so that's probably part of the reason, too. I don't think it's all the media, but I have such a distaste for the media that I tend to just lump them all together as a single entity.
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library

swiftnicholas
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by swiftnicholas » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:46 pm

Hi edonnelly, I share your distaste for much of what passes as journalism these days, and I also find myself lumping them together sometimes. I still find it difficult to believe that a story about voting would be a ratings grabber, and I'm not sure that I see why a story about low turnout rates would be more interesting. But, assuming for a minute that is the case, I think you're right that some people would deliberately choose the VAP numbers rather than the VEP, just to get those few percentage points, and that is certainly deceptive. I think the same kind of exaggeration happens constantly with poll numbers, with no analysis of how the questions were asked, and of whom.

GGG, I haven't found any third party candidates that I like much either. I think part of that has to do with the near impossibility of being elected as a third party candidate, and I like to think that eventually, maybe not too quickly, that we would get more reasonable third party candidates if we chose them using preferential rankings, rather than head-to-head(-to-head) races. It has to do with the more accurate determination of candidate approval. And I think Carola's suggestion that mandatory voting seems to reduce the amount of radical candidates on both sides is worth thinking about.

I think the term I was looking for before was "approval voting". Even better than the preferential rankings, or "instant-run off" as it's also called. Just noticed this website with more info and further links:

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/app ... enter.html


~N

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:32 am

swiftnicholas wrote: I still find it difficult to believe that a story about voting would be a ratings grabber, and I'm not sure that I see why a story about low turnout rates would be more interesting.
A story about voter turn out will be more interesting if the turn out is either very low or very high rather than an expected turn out. With a very low turn out, comparing it to the VAP will "enhance the story and with a very high turn out VEP will do the same trick.

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:37 am

Fabiola wrote: I agree that politicians tend to be two-faced unprincipled con-men.
Occasionally I watch a local hockey team play. It is amazing how civilized gentlemen turn into animals as soon as their skates hit the ice.
Politicians don't have a monopoly on "two-faced-ness."

User avatar
Fabiola
Textkit Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:31 am

Post by Fabiola » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:55 am

GlottalGreekGeek wrote:Actually, doing research about the third-party candidates in this election decreased my opinion of third-party candidates in general. I was no happy about the main candidates for the governorship election, so I went and looked up the third-party candidates. Then I discovered that I like the third-party candidates less than the main candidates. So I went to the last resort - I researched the write-in candidates (you can't write in anybody's name in a write-in - your vote will only count if you write-in one of the approved write-in candidates). The write-in candidates were even worse than the third-party candidates. I finally, after saying "ARGHHH!" enough times, made up my mind who the least evil candidate was - but I knew that no matter what happened in the govenor race, I would not be happy. All I hope is that somebody like Villaraigosa runs for governor in 2010 (or what I think Villaraigosa is - I admit I haven't researched him very thoroughly, and perhaps I would like him a lot less if I did research him, but what little I've heard about him inclines me to think he would make a better governor than any of the candidates who ran in this election).

I agree that third-party candidates are more likely to stick by their principles. That is a bad thing if you strongly diagree with their principles, and since most third-party candidates are political radicals, and I am a political centrist, I usually disagree with their principles.
Do agree with you there. Perhaps I should clarify that I by no means mean to say that 3rd party automatically = better, it obviously can be much worse (having a political radical in office isn't something I want, either); but I have seen some few 3rd party members who impressed me more than the Democrats and Republicans. Not being particularly up to date on current politics, I don't know any names off the top of my head right now, though.
EDIT : Being a successful politician requires a certain degree of two-facedness, breaking pledges, etc.
That's probably true. :?
phpbb

User avatar
Fabiola
Textkit Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:31 am

Post by Fabiola » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:57 am

Bert wrote:
Fabiola wrote: I agree that politicians tend to be two-faced unprincipled con-men.
Occasionally I watch a local hockey team play. It is amazing how civilized gentlemen turn into animals as soon as their skates hit the ice.
Politicians don't have a monopoly on "two-faced-ness."
Absolutely true; however, hockey players aren't responsible for the future of the country. It's a bit more upsetting to me to see an in-power politician acting in an unsavory manner than to see an athelete brawling on the ice.
phpbb

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:11 am

swiftnicholas wrote:GGG, I haven't found any third party candidates that I like much either.

I disagree, swiftnicholas. In the last two presidential elections you had an oustanding gentleman by the name of Ralph Nader.

As for the electability of an third party candidates, unfortunately you're right. Without massive amounts of money... it's either the Dems or Rep. That's why I hope someone like a Bill Moyers would run for the leadership of the Dems.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

swiftnicholas
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by swiftnicholas » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:51 pm

Bert wrote:A story about voter turn out will be more interesting if the turn out is either very low or very high rather than an expected turn out. With a very low turn out, comparing it to the VAP will "enhance the story and with a very high turn out VEP will do the same trick.
Hi Bert, very good point. I think I can agree that making the numbers extreme in either direction would boost ratings, but I was skeptical that there was a motivation to focus specifically on low numbers rather than extreme numbers. I seem to remember quite a few stories about the high turn out in the last presidential election; it would be interesting to know whether the VEP numbers were used more often during that period of time than at other times.

PeterD wrote:I disagree, swiftnicholas. In the last two presidential elections you had an oustanding gentleman by the name of Ralph Nader.
Well, I certainly wouldn't use the word "outstanding". But I thought the tone of his 2000 campaign was refreshing at least. How does the Canadian voting system work? And what's the usual turnout? (Of the VEP, of course. :) )

~N

User avatar
mariek
Global Moderator
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:19 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post by mariek » Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:20 am

PeterD wrote:"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote in a national election."---Bill Vaughn
Hadn't heard that one. Don't know the stats at my polling place, but I have never had to wait in line. I heard that the US has one of the lowest voter turnouts of any country.

I do all the reading before voting, go vote, and my baby girl gets the "I voted!" sticker....

Post Reply