Huzzah! Ι asserted my right to vote!
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
- Location: Mountain View
Huzzah! Ι asserted my right to vote!
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.
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.
-
- 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!
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.GlottalGreekGeek wrote:On the other hand, I had the good fortune turn eighteen in a year with interesting things going on.
And I thought it was absurd I was voting on more than two referenda.There were five double-sided pages of ballot to fill out.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/ — http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
- thesaurus
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:44 pm
Re: Huzzah! Ι asserted my right to vote!
I'm such a responsible citizen that I voted early!
In Colorado this year we have seven referenda and seven amendments at stake.annis wrote: And I thought it was absurd I was voting on more than two referenda.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Smart, witty, AND socially responsible! My congrats to your parents, GGG.
~PeterD
~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
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 12:34 am
- Location: Adelaide, Australia
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.
I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:02 pm
- Contact:
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
- Location: Music City, USA
- Contact:
Re: Huzzah! Ι asserted my right to vote!
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).GlottalGreekGeek wrote:Of course, I wish I could have voted in the primaries too ... they are fairly important around here.
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Mijdrecht
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:34 pm
- Location: Washington DC
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.
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.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
Same here. I know who I'll definitely *not* vote for, though .perispomenon wrote: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.Agrippa wrote:I'm eighteen and didn't vote. To a lifetime of not voting!
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.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:25 pm
- Location: Voorburgi
- Contact:
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.ingrid70 wrote:Same here. I know who I'll definitely *not* vote for, though .perispomenon wrote: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.Agrippa wrote:I'm eighteen and didn't vote. To a lifetime of not voting!
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.
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.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: In a van down by the river
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.ingrid70 wrote:Personally, I think Americans have an extra reason to vote and hopefully vote wisely: American politics greatly influence world politics.
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.
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
"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
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
- Location: Music City, USA
- Contact:
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%.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
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
- Location: New York
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.edonnelly wrote:To hear the media talk at times you'd think that number was well below 50%.
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 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.
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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
- Location: Mountain View
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.
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.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
- Location: New York
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.
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.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:56 am
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.perispomenon wrote:Why would you like to celebrate a lifetime of non voting?Agrippa wrote:I'm eighteen and didn't vote. To a lifetime of not voting!
- IreneY
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
- Location: U.S.A (not American though)
- Contact:
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.
P.S. Sorry for the many mistakes I bet this post is peppered with.
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.
P.S. Sorry for the many mistakes I bet this post is peppered with.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Mijdrecht
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:56 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.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 609
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 12:34 am
- Location: Adelaide, Australia
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.swiftnicholas wrote:
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 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.
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.
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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
- Location: Arthur Ontario Canada
Would that be voting in order to promote greater accountability on the part of the government by having a strong opposition?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.
Maybe then it could be translated as "balance of power."
No need to feel ":oops:" about that.IreneY wrote: Sorry for the long tirade but, as you can understand, this is something I feel very strongly about.
I am always amazed how good the English is of you and others for whom English is not the native language.IreneY wrote: P.S. Sorry for the many mistakes I bet this post is peppered with.
The only thing I noticed is (and you questioned it yourself)
You did not supply an object for "enforced."...but they never, ever enforced (? wonder if that's the right verb to use)...
"They never enforced IT. " Or; "They never enforced THIS RULE."
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
- Location: Music City, USA
- Contact:
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.).swiftnicholas wrote:I think the number to which you refer is the percentage of the voting-age population
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
- Location: New York
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.
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.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:31 am
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?
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?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
- Location: Mountain View
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.
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.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:47 am
- Location: Music City, USA
- Contact:
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.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.
The lists:
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
G'Oogle and the Internet Pharrchive - 1100 or so free Latin and Greek books.
DownLOEBables - Free books from the Loeb Classical Library
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
- Location: New York
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
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
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
- Location: Arthur Ontario Canada
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.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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1889
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
- Location: Arthur Ontario Canada
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:31 am
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.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.
That's probably true.EDIT : Being a successful politician requires a certain degree of two-facedness, breaking pledges, etc.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:31 am
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.Bert wrote: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.Fabiola wrote: I agree that politicians tend to be two-faced unprincipled con-men.
Politicians don't have a monopoly on "two-faced-ness."
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 591
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
- Location: Montreal, Canada
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
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
- Location: New York
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.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.
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. )PeterD wrote:I disagree, swiftnicholas. In the last two presidential elections you had an oustanding gentleman by the name of Ralph Nader.
~N
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 1387
- Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 11:19 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
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.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 do all the reading before voting, go vote, and my baby girl gets the "I voted!" sticker....