Did You VoteOrNot.org? 540
WhiskerBiscuit writes "The boys at Am I Hot or Not have started a sweepstakes to encourage people to register to vote. According to this blogger's analysis, the contest should encourage disempowered people to register (subject to the constraint that poor people don't have computers). The organizers have cleverly split the prize between a lucky winner and whoever happens to have referred them, providing a selection advantage for viral dispersal of the meme."
Virals and sweeps... (Score:5, Interesting)
These sweepstakes sites must just have tons and tons of traffic because they turfed a lot our way. If you promoting a new site, I suggest it highly.
The problem with viral campaigns like VoteOrNot is that it is too easy to have multiple on-line personalities. In these days, nobody has one email account... it's easy for one person to be a ton of people online. That's the problem the company will have.
The problem the rest of us will have is these techniques will likely flood every forum in the world with referrals... much like the free iPod, LCD, hummer, hooker, etc. campaigns have.
"Exclude stories" not working? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone else seeing this?
Interesting discussion on the radio... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a resident of North Dakota.. (Score:5, Interesting)
ND is the only state [state.nd.us] that does not have voter registration.
One good thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Viral distribution, eh? I wonder how long it'll be before one of the recent e-mail worms is rewritten to send out referral links to this thing.
Re:jury duty (Score:3, Interesting)
Carlin on voting (Score:1, Interesting)
Kinda sums up my beliefs
Sad commentary (Score:2, Interesting)
Mandatory Voting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting discussion on the radio... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit. If you can't find a candidate you like amongst the Bloc Québécois, The Canadian Action Party, The Christian Heritage Party, The Communist Party of Canada, The Conservative Party of Canada, The Green Party of Canada, The Liberal Party of Canada, The Libertarian Party of Canada, The Marijuana Party, The Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, The New Democratic Party, The Progressive Canadian Party, or the Republican Party of Canada then you've got problems. Or if you honestly can't find someone to vote for then fucking RUN YOURSELF! Spoiling your ballot is the pussy's way out. End of story.
Voter Registration and rights (Score:2, Interesting)
Register to vote? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in Denmark, every person over 18 is sent a card and a place/time to vote. No registration. The result is that 80+% actually vote...
Yeah ok, so we are a small (5.3 million) country so it's easier to manage here. Still makes it a much better way.
Re:Sad commentary (Score:5, Interesting)
Foreigners in Norway are allowed to vote in local elections after 3 years of legal residency. After my third year here, I got my voter card in the mail. Unprovoked. No registration or anything. Very nice.
All of the Norwegians I know find the idea of having to register to vote very offensive and provokative. Some say that the reason why automatic "registration" doesn't exist in the US, is that if it were the case, people might actually vote!
Re:Mandatory Voting (Score:3, Interesting)
If the challenger were someone like Ahnold, though, it would be a different story...so I predict that Greece's politics is full of career politicians and movie stars.
Re:Virals and sweeps... (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem is that I don't ask for personally identifiable information about my visitors and if they're like me, they won't want to give it just to enter a contest.
Any suggestions?
I take it a step further (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, this is illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for trying though.
Re:How about fuck voting (Score:2, Interesting)
F*** The Vote (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wonder Why? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Help for time off (Score:3, Interesting)
what's the demographic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite the opposite, actually. No tinfoil necessary. You're right that GOTV campaigns are never really nonpartisan -- whichever way the demographic being targeted tends to vote, that's the side the organizers are supporting.
As for the audience for HotOrNot, let's see
If my guess about the demographic is right, and the organizers aren't Democrats, then they're fools.
Incidentally, I'd question the idea that people who don't vote aren't informed. I think it's just as likely that they have opinions about politics as useful as ours, but don't see any particular reward or impact from voting. Offering some additional reward in that case makes a lot of sense. I'm sure there are also some who are just uninformed, but I wouldn't be so quick to write off the mass of non-voters.
how is that insightful? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what's the demographic? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd guess you're not as right as you think you are. Old Republicans come form somewhere. Sometimes it's young Republicans. Computer access...possibly more well-off...probably financially above-average...very likely Republican.
And don't let the subject matter through you off. Just because the Republicans don't want you to see dirty pictures and have fun in the privacy of your own bedroom, doesn't mean they're not the party of adulterers and dirty old men.
And what if Jim and James go for Party A, VoteOrNot leads to a bunch of votes for Party B? How does that make them fools? Maybe they're just trying to get more people registered and voting.
Fascist, Anarchist or True American? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you need to widen your political outlook. The political spectrum isn't simply composed of Fascists, Anarchists and Good, Honest, True Americans.
Just because someone wants to tighten voting rules and regulations doesn't make them a fascist. At the same time, opposing those rules doesn't make someone an anarchist. An anarchist would be pretty offended that you would characterize them as someone who believes in voting for a government under a minimal set of rules. An anarchist doesn't believe that one person should ever have authority over another person -- an outlook that doesn't mesh very well with voting.
With no rules about who can vote, when they can vote, and how often they can vote, voting becomes completely meaningless. But that isn't the same thing as anarchy.
On the other hand, if you take voting restrictions to extremes you will end up with meaningless votes. No question there. However, there are a number of political systems which may or may not have restricted elections. The word that best suits a system where the government has control over its citizens' everyday lives is authoritarianism, or at the extreme totalitarianism.
Really this discussion is all about the right number of restrictions on votes in a democratic system. I guess the answer to that depends on what the desired outcome of the voting is.
In a totalitarian regime, the purpose of voting is to make the government seem legitimate. In an authoritarian one, it may be that, or it may be to make the people feel as if they have some say in how things go. The question is, what's the purpose of an election in a democratic republic. Is the purpose to express the will of the voters, and have them choose the person they want to represent them, or is it to have the public choose the person who is best qualified to represent them? Those two options may seem like they're the same thing, but they're not.
In the first case, if the people choose to elect a mass murdering psychopath, the system is working perfectly -- as long as their votes were accurately counted. If the goal is to choose a person who is qualified, then the choice of a psychopath would be a failure.
So the question is, what's the goal of the US democracy? Is it to choose qualified leaders who will help the country, or is it simply to allow the public to choose anybody they wish, whether that choice is self-destructive or not? If you believe that the country should be allowed to "shoot itself in the foot" if it wants to, then any restrictions on voting would be bad. On the other hand, if you think the goal is to choose leaders who will make the country a better place, then you should consider what restrictions would encourage the choice of good, responsible leaders.
People who believe that the act of voting is the important part should be ready to defend the right of the completely insane, or the severely mentally retarded to vote. People who believe that the important part is choosing a good leader should be willing to defend restrictions on who is allowed to vote.
Neither of these camps is "fascist" or "anarchist", they're just different varieties of democrat.
Sad commentary on the state of political knowledge (Score:3, Interesting)
7 of the 30-some people in my class passed that criteria.
That was pathetic. Especially since the questions practically answered themselves:
N ) Which of the following is the residence of the President:
N+1) The White House is the official home of who?
Or were asked repeatedly:
8) How many states are there in the Union?
100) How many states are there in the Union?
One of the ones most people missed was probably:
X) How many years can a president hold office?
A) 2
B) 4
C) 2 terms of 4 years
D) 10
And you wonder why politicians can get away with the bullshit they do...