Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Voters In Many States Must Register By October 6

Posted by kdawson on Mon Oct 06, 2008 01:12 AM
from the there-is-no-late dept.
Government United States Politics
Will F. Johnston writes "Voters in AK, AR, AZ, CO, DC, FL, GA, HI, IN, KY, LA, MI, MS, OH, PA, TN, TX, and VA must register to vote by tomorrow, October 6, in order to vote in November. Other deadlines coming up soon: IL and NM are October 7. MT is Oct. 6, but you can do same-day registration at the elections office. UT is also Oct. 6, but you can register in person until the 20th."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Voters in Many States MUST Register by October 6 by Will F. Johnston (1324223)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Voters In Many States Must Register By October 6 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Register and consider the Green Party Candidate (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hulkster (722642) on Monday October 06 2008, @01:13AM (#25270237) Homepage
    Hulk for President! [komar.org]

    Vote here [komar.org] for the SMASHING Big Green Guy because you don't want to make him angry - you wouldn't like him when he is angry ... ;-)

    • Why not Cthulhu (http://www.cthulhu.org/)?

      He's certainly less evil than the current president.

  • Please (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Apple Acolyte (517892) on Monday October 06 2008, @01:14AM (#25270243)
    only register and vote if you have an intelligent vote to cast!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Alternative: find the stupidest person you know, find out who he or she is voting for, then register with the specific intent to counter that vote with your own.

      • This is poor logic. Stupid people do not vote based on any intelligable information, and therefore it can not be assumed that they are not voting for the most qualified candidate. Instead, you should make the decision for them. Find out who they are voting for, and if it is in opposition to your informed decision, hit them with your car right before election day. Since people with informed decisions will be voting for a variety of candidates, this line of reasoning has the benefit of simply removing all

        • Re:Please (Score:4, Funny)

          by halcyon1234 (834388) on Monday October 06 2008, @07:36AM (#25271839) Journal

          Since people with informed decisions will be voting for a variety of candidates, this line of reasoning has the benefit of simply removing all stupid people from the voting public.

          But if you remove all the stupid people, you run into two problems:

          1. You won't have anyone left to run for office
          2. The two remaining people will be forced to run. They will have to vote for themselves, and thus deadlock the country

    • Looking at the options[0], it looks like, to paraphrase Joshua, the only intelligent move is not to vote.

      [0]Term used very, very loosely.

    • Don't Listen to him! (Score:4, Funny)

      by scenestar (828656) * on Monday October 06 2008, @08:12AM (#25272143) Homepage Journal

      Mccain 08!

      • He didn't say that. He told them to make the choice to not vote, should they have nothing to vote for.

        This is completely different than being forbidden to vote, or even worse, voting for something without actually being represented.

        Actually now that I say that, it sounds an awful lot like our current system. I can understand how a hundred years ago we could get by with so few representatives. Our population was much smaller. But we're bigger now. We have more people. Why do we still have so few representati

        • The number could be changed - constitutionally the smallest ratio is 1/30K so with 300 million we'd have about 10K representatives. The logistics of 10K vs. 435 are up for debate. Does anyone know if any other country has this many reps/parliamentarians/etc? Certainly would make bribing more expensive.

          • Finland has 200, that's a ratio of 1/26500. More reps in the US would perhaps be a good idea, say up to twice the amount? 800 is still barely within reasonable limits, I would say. They'd still fit in an A380, too.

              • Re:Please (Score:5, Funny)

                by powerlord (28156) on Monday October 06 2008, @08:29AM (#25272321) Journal

                There's a unit of measurement to be found here...

                Represented constituents per Airbus?

                Airbuses per proportion of representation?

                We might have to use a derivative...

                Sorry ... we use Boeings here. Can you give me the conversion rate?

      • Democracy is such that everyone has the right to have their say and make their vote, even if it's an "unintelligent" vote. That's one of the core fundamentals of democracy

        Real democracy requires that everyone who's eligible to vote keeps themselves fully informed so that they are able to play an active part in the process. In a real democracy, every vote would be worthwhile. Of course neither US nor UK citizens live in a real democracy.

        • Real democracy is not about electing officials with unlimited power. Democracy means the people have the power, hence we don't need representative government. Let everyone vote on every single thing that government wants done, and require that 51% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS vote yes for it to pass. That way, staying home is the equivalent of voting no, rather than not being counted at all.

          Then again, I want to end suffrage rights [unanimocracy.com] entirely.

          • Then again, I want to end suffrage rights entirely.

            Me too; in the sense of the last paragraph..

            Of course, who has the time to fully involve themselves in every issue? There would be noone to keep the country running if everyone were fully-immersed in politics. What we really need is to find people who genuinely care about the fellow men as a whole and are sufficiently robust of character to resist the corrupting influence of power then elect them to political office.

        • Of course neither US nor UK citizens live in a real democracy.

          That's because those of us in the states live in a republic and our UK mates live in a constitutional monarchy.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TheLink (130905)
            "That's because those of us in the states live in a republic and our UK mates live in a constitutional monarchy"

            And so what if you in the USA don't live in a "Real Democracy"?

            The last I checked in USA 2004, 99% of the voters voted for either of "The Two" AND Bush got _reelected_ AND this time round his party still has a fighting chance, rather than say "Not One of the Two" party.

            So unless the elections got completely diebolded it sure smells like DEMOCRACY to me. It's not perfect, but that's a good enough r

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by socsoc (1116769)

              it sure smells like DEMOCRACY to me.

              As long as we have the electoral system, it's painfully obvious that it's not a democracy.

        • That's a rather stupid statement in a number of ways. For one, of course the US isn't a pure Democracy. It was never set up that way. It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. There are a lot of democratic traditions, but the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. So whining that the US isn't a "real" Democracy is dumb. Of course it isn't. It never has been, and never will be barring the replacement of the Constitution.

          As for the fully informed part, well that's what the grandparent was talking about, where you

          • You can never know everything about a candidate,

            I'm really arguing that ideally there would be no need for candidates. The people would maintain full awareness of the issues. After all, that's what it's all supposed to about, right, issues? As it is, voting is meaningless, even if the votes were correctly counted (yet another level of misdirection/red-herring). We should be voting on the issues; then some administrative branch should carry out the will of the people.

            that means that you've just taken away th

            • People do not vote on the laws directly. Rather, they elect a body of people who then vote on the laws. It's fine to like a different system, but you have to understand that the US is a Republic and is working as intended. It was never set up to be a direct Democracy and as I said, you'd have to replace the Constitution before that could happen. You'll note that people don't even elect the president, rather each state votes for which candidate they'd like, then sends electors to actually vote for the presid

              • 'Fortunately', I live in the UK/am English; although, as you can see, USAnian foolishness is spreading like wildfire so the disctinction is somewhat unnecessary.

                You know, it's fine explaining how things are and how it would be difficult to enact change. My question to you is do you think change would be beneficial? Surely there must be a better way of ensuring that everyone is collectively involved in shaping the societies in which they live. Oh wait, that's not to the benefit of those in power; is it?

                • IMHO, direct democracy couldn't possible work in practice, it requires too much work by the average guy. It's the same as everyone farming their own food, it becomes terribly inefficient. Instead, we specialize: politicians are specialized in making decision for the people the same way farmers make basic raw materials for food for the people. The only difference is that the benefits of corruption are greater, and oversight is more difficult. We have a group of specialized people to do that - the media - but

      • He is not denying anyone anything. He's suggesting "If you don't know what you're voting for, either learn what you're voting for or please don't vote."

  • "Voters in AK, AR, AZ, CO, DC, FL, GA, HI, IN, KY, LA, MI, MS, OH, PA, TN, TX, and VA must register to vote by tomorrow, October 6, in order to vote in November.

    What kind of shitty vote-rigging software are they using?! November is over three weeks away ffs!

    • In most states, you can still vote Republican even if your address is a cemetary.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Artraze (600366)

      The only sympathy I have is for people who turn 18 between now and then. People who are just registering now (again, unless then just came of age) are demonstrating a clear lack of interest in politics in general and are voting only because of the hyped campaign and the "get out the vote" efforts. Hell, they didn't even register to vote in primary. I registered to vote less than a month after I turned 18 because I care about these things (including primaries). Did you know that primaries frequently dec

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by icebrain (944107)

        Err, you can register to vote before you turn 18, so long as you register within 6 months of your birthday and you will be 18 by or on election day.

        I know because I did it several years ago.

      • I used to feel this way, but this year I have observed that Presidential elections are a great way to get people who were until then completely uninterested in politics to genuinely be interested. This is most effective with people who turned 18 between now and the last Presidential election. I know of at least one person who has flip-flopped on their general interest in politics and is now actually looking up what the candidates for local office are saying.

  • North Dakota Doesn't Require Registration (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jarrettwold2002 (601633) on Monday October 06 2008, @01:37AM (#25270345)

    We may be labeled ass backwards, but I think we have this one right. Registration seems to really screw with potential voters.

    • Re:North Dakota Doesn't Require Registration (Score:5, Interesting)

      by inKubus (199753) on Monday October 06 2008, @01:54AM (#25270405) Homepage Journal

      If you look at the history of the American democracy, there have been hyjinx in literally EVERY election since the start. There are stories of candidates sending wagons to the barrooms, and giving whisky to anyone who would vote for him. Registration is meant to curb the old "wheel them across town to vote again" trick. The problem isn't registration, it's general voter apathy. The thing about democracy is that the system only works if everyone votes. Luckly, we have layered upon the democracy a representative government, wherein you pick a good guy from your local area to represent you. The problem of course is that the good guy is most likely going to be more than 50% financed by corporations rather than individuals. Not always the case but often. Such is the state of affairs. 99% of the money in the hands of 1% of the population does that. The Republicans have moved from favoring the representatives to blantant corporatism--making corporations the government. It has been pointed out that this is exactly what happened in the 30's in Italy. It's affected the balance of America, because previously the subjugation of democracy has led to smaller government. Now, with democracy down AND a larger government (specifically homoland security), the political stability of the country is much lower. Now, we still have the 3 tiers, and not everyone in congress and senate has been bought by the immortality lobby yet. And really, the most important thing to you should be your local area. So, if you're going to worry about it, worry about local issues first, and move up as you go. Local can also mean on the internet, in your local network area (IE, your regular habitat). Be a leader and see the world change around you. Be a follower, and you'll see it change, but probably not to your liking.

      • The thing about democracy is that the system only works if everyone votes.

        I'm glad that everyone has to vote in Belgium by law. Now if only the politicians would cooperate...

      • Voter apathy isn't necessarily the problem.

        Western European democracies routinely have an election turnout percentage in the 80's or 90's.

        One of the result is a large representation for socialist, extreme left-wing and extreme right wing parties. In the US, this segment of the population by and large doesn't bother to vote.

        I'm not saying the poor, angry, permanently unemployed or xenophobic segments of the population should be prevented from voting, but before you actively start encouraging them, be sure yo

  • We all know who to vote for. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Monday October 06 2008, @01:40AM (#25270359) Journal
    Kibo for President!
  • Lots of big battleground states.I know its cliche, but you can't bitch if you don't get involved.

    • Re:And just one other reminder (Score:4, Funny)

      by Kandenshi (832555) on Monday October 06 2008, @01:23AM (#25270281)

      In fact, if I pick the winner I LOSE when it comes to politics.

      All that self-righteous "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos/another guy" that I love so much goes out the window if I actually voted for the shmuck. That's why I try to make sure I pick someone who's unlikely to win, but still seems like the sort of guy I like.

      Usually, I do a write-in vote for Santa. Sure /. might harp on his love for surveillance that goes beyond regular wiretapping... but he brings me presents!

    • A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

      Why vote for the lesser of two evils?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Idiomatick (976696)

      If you don't vote for the lesser evil you throw your vote away and you will get~ the greater evil. I'm AMAZED how many people can keep saying DON'T VOTE after bush got in the second time. The margin was 600 fucking votes, if you voted for the lesser evil then you wouldn't have bush now and would be up at least a trillion dollars and hundreds of lives. Please don't believe in the terrible logic. Unless you want McCain to get in ... *shudder*

    • Sounds like someone's been watching this video [youtube.com] and didn't go to the end...

      W

    • Sounds like a Stephen Colbert rant mocking a neocon point of view. Only trouble is, I fail to see any humor or second degree in that one.
    • "26% of Americans agreed that we should bomb Switzerland if the sanctions don't work"

      A simple question posed a decade ago, goes to show that 26% of Americans could do with a lobotomy

      I hope they are not that dumb any more ...

      G
      • And I hope that Lindsay Lohan gets a hot lesbian girlfriend and comes over to let me watch them eat whipped cream out of eachother's assholes, but I think we'll both be disappointed.

    • Your second bullet point negates your third one. The very same vote that doesn't matter is the same non-vote that doesn't matter as well.

      Besides, here's another way to look at it: If you don't vote, everyone else's votes are worth more.

      Or maybe that was the plan? Get people not to vote so that your vote means more?

      • > No, half of the people in this country are at or below median intelligence.

        IQ [wikipedia.org] is based on the assumption that intelligence distribution is normal. In the normal distribution, the average is the same as the median, and yes, half the people in the world have below-average intelligence. That does not mean that half the people in this country have below average intelligence, because IQ averages vary by country. If you look at the table of IQs by country [wikipedia.org] (which are averages, BTW), you'll see that the US has

    • If voting changed anything, it would be illegal...

      Don't be fooled this election won't change anything.

      ----

      Let's have a looked at some of the differences between the parties shall we?
      Republicrats, want to bomb Iraq, bomb Afghanistan

      Democans, want to bomb Iraq (but say they won't do it for quite so long), and bomb Afghanistan

      Republicrats, want to keep the same shitty capitalist system which oppresses the vast majority of people, and want to keep making the rich richer
      Democans, want to keep the same shitty cap

      • Knowing how many times he agreed means nothing if you don't know how many times he disagreed.

        All people agree on some basic things, and disagree on others.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.