Voters In Many States Must Register By October 6 182
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."
Register and consider the Green Party Candidate (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Why not Cthulhu (http://www.cthulhu.org/)?
He's certainly less evil than the current president.
Please (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Please (Score:4, Funny)
But if you remove all the stupid people, you run into two problems:
Re: (Score:2)
Me and...... whos the other guy?
Re: (Score:2)
You also, but with a color-shifted tie
Re: (Score:2)
And a goatee.....don't forget the goatee.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilTwin [tvtropes.org]
Layne
Re: (Score:2)
That would be me. Can you make the debate Wednesday afternoon?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...I wonder who George W is voting for?
undecided (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or to paraphrase Henry Rollins, "You're never going to be able to vote for your president the way you'd vote for your favorite rock star. It just isn't going to happen. Instead, you need to use your vote against the guy you don't like. Maybe the next guy will be good, maybe he won't, but at least you're working to changing what's wrong now."
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that logic, with all due respect to Mr. Rollins, is that "lesser evil" voting doesn't work to change what's wrong now, since it's a huge part of what is wrong.
Don't Listen to him! (Score:4, Funny)
Mccain 08!
Re: (Score:2)
And of course by intelligent vote, you mean a vote for your preferred candidate?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re:Please (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry ... we use Boeings here. Can you give me the conversion rate?
Re: (Score:2)
1.5973782 Boeings per airbus.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be much easier if we were only expected to keep up with more local issues. Things like macroeconomics and international affairs ar
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember kids, entrenched law is not a good thing. Shit, France still has valid laws on the books dating back to the Napoleonic days. You don't want to be like France, now do you?
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you want?
300 million people to decide what is the best chess move to make next?
Or people to decide who makes the chess moves for them?
I'm all for referendums for big issues (like war - see: http://slashdot.org/~TheLink/journal/208853 [slashdot.org] )
But it really is a bad idea to have voters micromanage.
If you dislike the candidates voters have been choosing, do you really think you would like voters to make all those decisions?
As it is the real leaders are the ones who control the media the voters watch. They'
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we have the electoral system, it's painfully obvious that it's not a democracy.
It's a bad democracy that doesn't count all votes equally, but that doesn't mean it's not a democracy at all. It's just a bad one.
Re: (Score:2)
" If you voted for a candidate you actually didn't want, well that's your problem. There ARE other candidates, it's not just the Two that the media and voters keep assuming.
Yes, and if you vote for anyone other than one of the two, you might as well stay home. Third parties and independents aren't going to have a meaningful national showing until and unless they start local, work towards state, and THEN go national. It just won't work. You are wasting your vote. Stay home and save the gas money.
At the rate the USA is going, it's not so different from China which has only One Party ;). Just think of McCain and Obama as candidates of rival factions in the same Party that has ruled the country for decades.
There are deep fundamental differences between Obama and McCain. You seem to be dismissing that. This is a naiive oversimplification of the many life-changing issues that they di
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Obama is a decent candidate, go ahead and vote for him. I personally would prefer Obama over McCain (and Palin).
As I said, it may well be that the current two parties are really representing 99% of the voters.
If the "stay at home" voters disagree, they should get off their butts and be counted. Then at least the other two parties might have additional information on deciding whether they need to shift their direction - they have change
Ummmm (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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's how a Republic works (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
'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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is hard!
Wait a minute...President Bush, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
For a few years, I've thought it would be interesting to augment the system to allow individual voters to have input. For example, the representatives elected from your district will cast their votes as they do today. However, if you disagree with one of your representatives' votes, you can cast your own in a different manner, effecting a minute change in the vote totals (ie a fractional vote - a politician representing 10,000 people would then have 0.9999 of his vote in one category, and the other 0.0001
Re: (Score:2)
*ooh* *ouch*, that hurt.
So, does that mean that you disagree? if so, why? btw, I'm not a USAnian (I assume that's what you were implying by suggesting that I have a senator.)
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Tomorrow? (Score:2)
What kind of shitty vote-rigging software are they using?! November is over three weeks away ffs!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In most states, you can still vote Republican even if your address is a cemetary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My brother has tried registering to vote here in Albuquerque twice (he is still registered to vote back home) with those folks that go around campus asking people to register. He has never received his voter card from the State Secretary so I guess they never bothered to turn in the papers (incompetent or malicious - you decide). A third person going around campus was insisting that he needed to provide his social security number on the form (yeah like he's going to give that to some random schmuck on the s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you meant to say:
My friend is a last-minute registrant, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it even necessary to register in advance? Isn't every US citizen registered at birth/time of immigration?
And does anyone know if there are any other countries that also require you to register in advance? It sounds very archaic to me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:North Dakota Doesn't Require Registration (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad that everyone has to vote in Belgium by law. Now if only the politicians would cooperate...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Western European democracies routinely have an election turnout percentage in the 80's or 90's.
Which Western European democracies exactly? Netherland usually has a voter turnout percentage closer to 50% (and even lower than that for European and local elections). In Belgium, on the other hand, voting is compulsory, so turnout tends to be over 90%.
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.
That's just apathy in a different form. They're required to vote, but don't care about any of the big moderate parties, so they vote for something extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
The Netherlands usually has a voter turnout percentage in the 80's or 90's, pretty much the same as Belgium, except obviously in elections for the EU, which are popular only in Belgium
http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/voter_turnout_pop2.cfm
Re: (Score:2)
Under term limits, the only ones with any institutional memory whatsoever in Congress will be lobbyists. Which will be the legislators that have been term-limited out, because they've been there, made contacts and know how things work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are a republic, not a democracy. That extra layer, of which you speak is what makes us a republic.
No, it's the lack of a monarch that makes you a republic. And lots of republics are democracies.
Re: (Score:2)
I defer to you if you've got some kind of expertise or knowledge...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These days, the Senate is just another popularity contest where statesmanship has gone out the window in favor of pandering...
Re: (Score:2)
We all know who to vote for. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Never! Why settle for the lesser evil?
Battleground States (Score:2)
This Friday (the 10th) in Oklahoma (Score:2)
Here in Oklahoma your registration application must be postmarked by this Friday to be elegible for the general election on Nov 4. If you live in Oklahoma, you can check your voter registration records with the state here [ok.gov], and download and print out a registration application here [ok.gov].
For other states, I'd suggest getting information by visting this site [canivote.org]. Google also has a nice site [google.com] set up, but it doesn't seem to have my state's polling information loaded yet. Perhaps you will have better luck. There's a new Wi
Wisconsin (Score:2)
...allows us to walk in on voting day. Not only that, but if I'm registered, I can say "Yeah, he's with me!" and my friend gets registered on the spot too - no proof of address needed. It's like going to a popular nightclub. Except all the employees are over 55, and you're in an elementary school gym.
Re:And just one other reminder (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
I see this a lot. Who's Kodos?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a Simpson's reference [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
Re: (Score:2)
IA-IA! Shub-Niggurath!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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*
Re: (Score:2)
"throw your vote away"?
One vote is not going to make a difference. Anyone who walks into a voting booth thinking that "oh, my vote could make a difference" is delusional.
I vote because it's what Americans do. It's what a virtuous man does, not because I actually think my vote will change anything. So I'll vote for the person I think SHOULD be president, not "the least evil guy who can actually win because I don't want to 'throw my vote away'".
Re: (Score:2)
269 votes would have saved us 4years of bush. There is more than that many people in calc 101 in my school. What you are saying is a fallacy ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't vote for the lesser evil you throw your vote away and you will get~ the greater evil.
Doing the lesser of two evils is still doing evil.
A clear conscience can promote further constructive activity.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two levers each will simultaneously kill one person and save another. The lever on the left will save the convicted mass murderer and kill the doctor who works saving peoples lives and helping as best he can donating all of his wages to charity. The lever on the right does the reverse. If you don't pull the lever someone else will.
Unless your logic is severely broken you should be able to see my point. Doing nothing IS evil. (Trade the doctor with 500doctors if you like).
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't pull the lever someone else will.
I understand your point, though I'd advocate jamming the levers and setting the prisoners free, so I'm voting for that Doctor.
When it comes to political calculations, long-term effects need to be considered. As in most things, one can sometimes trade short-term loss for long-term gain. Nobody is going to give up their maximum benefit, it's just a matter of whether they understand short-term vs. long-term benefits. Different individuals may make different valu
Democracy = Opium of the Masses (Score:2)
Don't Vote? (Score:2)
Sounds like someone's been watching this video [youtube.com] and didn't go to the end...
W
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I never said I was in the top half.
IQ is a standard normal, so average = median (Score:3, Informative)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Most states, actually.
Not only that, but even if you do bother to go out of your way to register to vote, you can get purged from the rolls for any number of reasons. Congress passed a law to limit this a few years back. Election boards now aren't allowed to purge non-felons unless they haven't voted in 8 years *an