Post by jeaniebueller on Nov 5, 2015 9:36:15 GMT -5
I wonder if this goes back to education. Why aren't we just hammering in the important of voting starting at a young age? PLus there is just so much voter apathy. I know plenty of college educated people who just don't know or care about what is going on in current events. Voting? What?
Republicans took sweeping control in NC for the first time in more than 100 years during the last big election.
At the state/local level I think it was an issue of both complacency and lack of strong party leadership.
And holy hell have the Republicans moved fast to ensure they remain in power with redistricting, restricting college students from voting at their school's district (minimizing the impact more liberal/urban/college towns have on elections) and total bs voting regulations.
I do agree with pp, you can't back down from your civic duty in any election cycle. The impact of Republican power in my state will be difficult to come back from.
I dont bother voting in local elections. I mean, in the general, every 3 votes for a D was the equivalent of 1 vote for an R due to gerrymandering - hence NC voting across the board red, and also voting for Obama.
Which means:
a) there are a lot of Obama loving republicans in NC or
b) gerrymandering has made voting on anything other than the Pres a total waste of time.
So Im not sure its fair to bemoan voters not turning out at mid terms etc. I also don't try to make my car fly or sing soprano. Some things are simply not worth the effort as the conclusion is forgone.
Are you talking about your US reps and state reps/senators when you refer to gerrymandering? There are other local elections - like really local - that are important. As is governor/senator which is state wide.
I'm not suggesting gerrymandering isn't an issue, because it is. Another issue is who ends up running so primaries are important too but generally have low turnout.
One of the big disappointments this year is who won KY's governor's race, which has nothing to do with gerrymandering and everything to do with super low turnout and who turned out to vote.
I want to start a non partisan non profit that gets out the vote for local elections.
And actually I wish that after he's out of office President Obama would get involved in something like this. His get out the vote operation has been excellent during each election and I think he (well, his people) would have some good insight.
Not Obama, well not just. Bernie Sanders too. Sanders is currently holding court with a large swath of people who typically don't vote. Bernie is probably not going to win the Nom but he has captured the attention of a large voting block, if they would vote. Do you want a socialist revolution? Good. It starts at the bottom, not just the top. Fill those county board of education, water districts, and city councils with people WHO CAN ACTUALLY PASS SOCIALIST REFORMS. Because if only Bernie is elected he will be a socialist figurehead and that's it. It means nothing if everyone beneath him is actively trying to be the opposite.
And actually I wish that after he's out of office President Obama would get involved in something like this. His get out the vote operation has been excellent during each election and I think he (well, his people) would have some good insight.
Not Obama, well not just. Bernie Sanders too. Sanders is currently holding court with a large swath of people who typically don't vote. Bernie is probably not going to win the Nom but he has captured the attention of a large voting block, if they would vote. Do you want a socialist revolution? Good. It starts at the bottom, not just the top. Fill those county board of education, water districts, and city councils with people WHO CAN ACTUALLY PASS SOCIALIST REFORMS. Because if only Bernie is elected he will be a socialist figurehead and that's it. It means nothing if everyone beneath him is actively trying to be the opposite.
By the way, I thought of you last night when I discovered that my brother's wife (dislike her strongly) is a Berner. I'm pretty glad I unfollowed her six months ago because her feed is berner berner berner.
One thing that amazed me in the midterms is the number of people who showed up to vote for Wolf then either didn't vote down ticket at all (like, literally left everything else blank) or voted for Wolf then all Republicans on the rest of the ticket.
I feel like a lot comes back to needing better civics education before people turn 18 (hey, we can indoctrinate them in government schools!) so that people understand how our entire government works, why voting for the entire ticket is important and the limitations of the executive branch.
I also get really fucking angry at how hard the suffragettes worked to have women not bother voting now.
Also, I know people who claim they are abstaining because there are no good options and they won't choose the lesser of two evils but they don't understand that there's no way for the party to distinguish displeasure with the options from apathy if you don't show up. Show up, write in or vote down ticket and abstain from those races you don't like the candidate for. If you don't show up, it's apathy, whether that was your intent or not.
I also get really fucking angry at how hard the suffragettes worked to have women not bother voting now.
Also, I know people who claim they are abstaining because there are no good options and they won't choose the lesser of two evils but they don't understand that there's no way for the party to distinguish displeasure with the options from apathy if you don't show up. Show up, write in or vote down ticket and abstain from those races you don't like the candidate for. If you don't show up, it's apathy, whether that was your intent or not.
You are singing my song, lady.
Your vote is your VOICE. It may not seem like much, but we have it - USE IT. Even if you write-in, you're saying "fuck this shit, I need something different."
I'm going to come up with a campaign that uses the word fuck. Profanity can move mountains.
I also get really fucking angry at how hard the suffragettes worked to have women not bother voting now.
Also, I know people who claim they are abstaining because there are no good options and they won't choose the lesser of two evils but they don't understand that there's no way for the party to distinguish displeasure with the options from apathy if you don't show up. Show up, write in or vote down ticket and abstain from those races you don't like the candidate for. If you don't show up, it's apathy, whether that was your intent or not.
You are singing my song, lady.
Your vote is your VOICE. It may not seem like much, but we have it - USE IT. Even if you write-in, you're saying "fuck this shit, I need something different."
I'm going to come up with a campaign that uses the word fuck. Profanity can move mountains.
I definitely think more people would show up if someone's campaign slogan was "Fuck this, I'm fixing things!"
I don't think we would see low turnout if we could figure out a way to get voting online. Obviously that has all the markings of potential disaster, but I would challenge the youths to figure it out.
I think Oregon has this. It's not workout precedent.
About a month ago I was in Denmark and was challenged to explain our political process. They couldn't get over the low voter turnout.
I do think election day should be a national holiday. There have been a few years where I barely made it to the polls. That was while working just 1 job.
Not Obama, well not just. Bernie Sanders too. Sanders is currently holding court with a large swath of people who typically don't vote. Bernie is probably not going to win the Nom but he has captured the attention of a large voting block, if they would vote. Do you want a socialist revolution? Good. It starts at the bottom, not just the top. Fill those county board of education, water districts, and city councils with people WHO CAN ACTUALLY PASS SOCIALIST REFORMS. Because if only Bernie is elected he will be a socialist figurehead and that's it. It means nothing if everyone beneath him is actively trying to be the opposite.
By the way, I thought of you last night when I discovered that my brother's wife (dislike her strongly) is a Berner. I'm pretty glad I unfollowed her six months ago because her feed is berner berner berner.
So, I voted on Tuesday but I often skip non-Presidential elections. Why? I feel completely uninformed. I voted straight ticket on Tuesday because I honestly didn't know anything about the candidates. I've tried Googling and it's hard to find much, even harder to find any information that isn't put out there by the candidates themselves. I'm part of my local Democrats group but all they do is urge us to get to the polls and vote Democrat.
I'm obviously interested in politics and I like to be informed but I'm only willing to put in so much effort before I get frustrated and just skip the polls.
So, I voted on Tuesday but I often skip non-Presidential elections. Why? I feel completely uninformed. I voted straight ticket on Tuesday because I honestly didn't know anything about the candidates. I've tried Googling and it's hard to find much, even harder to find any information that isn't put out there by the candidates themselves. I'm part of my local Democrats group but all they do is urge us to get to the polls and vote Democrat.
I'm obviously interested in politics and I like to be informed but I'm only willing to put in so much effort before I get frustrated and just skip the polls.
(Yes, I am ashamed to be writing this.)
No judging, because knowing this helps identify the problem.
Locally we have this "blue book" they issue out free by mail, plus it's available online, that helps drill down into each voter issue on the ballot so you can try to identify which way you want to vote. Candidates? That's harder, particularly with judges. I feel like they're following the healthcare tactic of "let's stay really ambiguous so we can do what we want."
Post by tacosforlife on Nov 5, 2015 12:02:17 GMT -5
I don't judge voting straight ticket at all. Parties exist for a reason. They allow people who share similar political values to collectively promote those values. I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but given my stances on pretty much every issue, I'm going to side with a D over an R in almost every race.
There is a member of our assembly who was elected by a couple thousand votes. Not that he won by this much, but that was his total vote haul, as the winner! In a district of hundreds of thousands. I think the break down was 8% particpation. EIGHT PERCENT!!!!!!!
I mean? There is literally no hope for our democracy if even people who frequent a political message board DONT VOTE.
So which is worse- not voting, or being an uninformed voter? I believe it's important to vote and to be informed. I took my almost 4yo to the polls with me and talked about how it's our civic duty to vote. But I felt a little like a fraud telling her this while I filled in the straight party bubble with no idea about anyone on the ballot.
I don't judge voting straight ticket at all. Parties exist for a reason. They allow people who share similar political values to collectively promote those values. I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but given my stances on pretty much every issue, I'm going to side with a D over an R in almost every race.
I have to disagree with this, primarily because party (IMO) doesn't trump person. I know others disagree with me on that, but I'd rather learn more about how a person will guide us forward vs. them just toeing the line of their party. Parties don't guarantee progress.
I mean? There is literally no hope for our democracy if even people who frequent a political message board DONT VOTE.
So which is worse- not voting, or being an uninformed voter? I believe it's important to vote and to be informed. I took my almost 4yo to the polls with me and talked about how it's our civic duty to vote. But I felt a little like a fraud telling her this while I filled in the straight party bubble with no idea about anyone on the ballot.
Not voting. Not informing yourself. These are all bad.
But if you are defining yourself as a low information voter because you tend to vote party ticket and because of this avoid the polls I would say that I don't think this makes you a non informed voter and failing to vote in this situation is worse.
I don't judge voting straight ticket at all. Parties exist for a reason. They allow people who share similar political values to collectively promote those values. I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but given my stances on pretty much every issue, I'm going to side with a D over an R in almost every race.
I have to disagree with this, primarily because party (IMO) doesn't trump person. I know others disagree with me on that, but I'd rather learn more about how a person will guide us forward vs. them just toeing the line of their party. Parties don't guarantee progress.
No, parties don't guarantee progress, but my statement stands - I'm almost always going to side with a D over an R. Their stances align with mine.
I mean, Paul Ryan seems like a good father and husband and is probably a nice guy to the people in his life. But I disagree with him on the vast majority of issues. Provided that his opponent didn't have some sort of criminal history or ongoing drug problem, I'd probably always vote for a Democrat if I lived in his district. Because at the end of the day, I care a lot more about whether my representatives will enact policies I support than whether I like them as people. And no matter how great of a leader someone is, I don't want someone guiding us forward with policies that are antithetical to my beliefs.
I understand why people don't like the idea of voting straight ticket, but if you have been unable to find out information about a specific race, voting based on party ID is, generally speaking, a pretty good way to choose the candidate most likely to align with your political views.
And the data supports me on this - a huge number of people claim to be independent, but when you actually look at their voting habits, they are partisans. The idea that there is a large group of independent, undecided voters who change parties from election to election and make a big difference in the outcome is a myth.
I have to disagree with this, primarily because party (IMO) doesn't trump person. I know others disagree with me on that, but I'd rather learn more about how a person will guide us forward vs. them just toeing the line of their party. Parties don't guarantee progress.
No, parties don't guarantee progress, but my statement stands - I'm almost always going to side with a D over an R. Their stances align with mine.
I mean, Paul Ryan seems like a good father and husband and is probably a nice guy to the people in his life. But I disagree with him on the vast majority of issues. Provided that his opponent didn't have some sort of criminal history or ongoing drug problem, I'd probably always vote for a Democrat if I lived in his district. Because at the end of the day, I care a lot more about whether my representatives will enact policies I support than whether I like them as people. And no matter how great of a leader someone is, I don't want someone guiding us forward with policies that are antithetical to my beliefs.
I understand why people don't like the idea of voting straight ticket, but if you have been unable to find out information about a specific race, voting based on party ID is, generally speaking, a pretty good way to choose the candidate most likely to align with your political views.
And the data supports me on this - a huge number of people claim to be independent, but when you actually look at their voting habits, they are partisans. The idea that there is a large group of independent, undecided voters who change parties from election to election and make a big difference in the outcome is a myth.
For national elections where major policy issues are at stake, I agree with you. I can't see myself ever voting for a Republican in those cases. But for local elections, I don't feel good about voting straight party. What if the guy who is an R is running for city council and hopes to demolish a delapidated building to put up new shops or office space in my town? I like that idea! What about being a D vs an R makes someone a better prothonotary?
Young people have to know when those votes take place.
I usually don't even hear about local elections until they are passed.
I think with yard signs, news and the fact that it's November, there are plenty of hints. People need to take some responsibility on this.
We're talking about local elections here, though.
In my state, we only vote on National elections on Election Day (so every two years). For local elections, we vote on Saturdays and there were seven elections the first year we moved here.
Our SOS has really pushed to get the number down. We had 5 this year and will have 4 next year. They also have a system to e-mail reminders for elections if you sign up for it, and have made the website very user friendly. But it's still not very easy to remember to go vote on a random Saturday in March.
Edit: Of course, last I heard the state didn't have athe budget to pay for elections at all in 2016, so we may not have the presidential primary. Maybe Jindal is under the impression that the electors will just vote for him if we don't have one.
No, parties don't guarantee progress, but my statement stands - I'm almost always going to side with a D over an R. Their stances align with mine.
I mean, Paul Ryan seems like a good father and husband and is probably a nice guy to the people in his life. But I disagree with him on the vast majority of issues. Provided that his opponent didn't have some sort of criminal history or ongoing drug problem, I'd probably always vote for a Democrat if I lived in his district. Because at the end of the day, I care a lot more about whether my representatives will enact policies I support than whether I like them as people. And no matter how great of a leader someone is, I don't want someone guiding us forward with policies that are antithetical to my beliefs.
I understand why people don't like the idea of voting straight ticket, but if you have been unable to find out information about a specific race, voting based on party ID is, generally speaking, a pretty good way to choose the candidate most likely to align with your political views.
And the data supports me on this - a huge number of people claim to be independent, but when you actually look at their voting habits, they are partisans. The idea that there is a large group of independent, undecided voters who change parties from election to election and make a big difference in the outcome is a myth.
For national elections where major policy issues are at stake, I agree with you. I can't see myself ever voting for a Republican in those cases. But for local elections, I don't feel good about voting straight party. What if the guy who is an R is running for city council and hopes to demolish a delapidated building to put up new shops or office space in my town? I like that idea! What about being a D vs an R makes someone a better prothonotary?
While your concerns may be true, none of this gives you a pass on not voting,
No, parties don't guarantee progress, but my statement stands - I'm almost always going to side with a D over an R. Their stances align with mine.
I mean, Paul Ryan seems like a good father and husband and is probably a nice guy to the people in his life. But I disagree with him on the vast majority of issues. Provided that his opponent didn't have some sort of criminal history or ongoing drug problem, I'd probably always vote for a Democrat if I lived in his district. Because at the end of the day, I care a lot more about whether my representatives will enact policies I support than whether I like them as people. And no matter how great of a leader someone is, I don't want someone guiding us forward with policies that are antithetical to my beliefs.
I understand why people don't like the idea of voting straight ticket, but if you have been unable to find out information about a specific race, voting based on party ID is, generally speaking, a pretty good way to choose the candidate most likely to align with your political views.
And the data supports me on this - a huge number of people claim to be independent, but when you actually look at their voting habits, they are partisans. The idea that there is a large group of independent, undecided voters who change parties from election to election and make a big difference in the outcome is a myth.
For national elections where major policy issues are at stake, I agree with you. I can't see myself ever voting for a Republican in those cases. But for local elections, I don't feel good about voting straight party. What if the guy who is an R is running for city council and hopes to demolish a delapidated building to put up new shops or office space in my town? I like that idea! What about being a D vs an R makes someone a better prothonotary?
That is a fair point, and it's really going to vary by location. I know there are some places where one party's primary essentially decides the general, so you'll have more conservative people running as Democrats or more liberal people running as Republicans. Party ID is less helpful in those types of races. I have tended to live in areas where the party ID is still very useful information.
For example, probably my number 1 local issue is mass transit. And I can tell you that the local Republicans hate mass transit and generally vote against any transit initiatives and prefer just to fund highway construction. So if I have no other information about a race, I feel OK voting for a Democrat. The ideal, of course, would be to be educated about every single downballot race. But if I'm unable to do that, I know that the chances a Democrat will support transit initiatives are far higher than the chances a Republican will. So given no other information, I'll choose the D every time.
For national elections where major policy issues are at stake, I agree with you. I can't see myself ever voting for a Republican in those cases. But for local elections, I don't feel good about voting straight party. What if the guy who is an R is running for city council and hopes to demolish a delapidated building to put up new shops or office space in my town? I like that idea! What about being a D vs an R makes someone a better prothonotary?
While your concerns may be true, none of this gives you a pass on not voting,
1) I did vote. 2) Why? Why are you so intent on people showing up to the polls and filling out a ballot without knowing who they're voting for?
I'm telling you there's a lack of information out there for voters and you just keep saying people should vote anyway.
While your concerns may be true, none of this gives you a pass on not voting,
1) I did vote. 2) Why? Why are you so intent on people showing up to the polls and filling out a ballot without knowing who they're voting for?
I'm telling you there's a lack of information out there for voters and you just keep saying people should vote anyway.
No you said you only vote sometimes.
There is actually a lot of information out there about races. League of Women Voters. Your Secretary of State (or whoever your state election official is). Your County office of Elections. Your newspaper. Your local news. Your local PBS/NPR. "Lack of information" doesn't ring true in the "age of information."
Not voting for lack of information is not a valid excuse.
I have to disagree with this, primarily because party (IMO) doesn't trump person. I know others disagree with me on that, but I'd rather learn more about how a person will guide us forward vs. them just toeing the line of their party. Parties don't guarantee progress.
No, parties don't guarantee progress, but my statement stands - I'm almost always going to side with a D over an R. Their stances align with mine.
I mean, Paul Ryan seems like a good father and husband and is probably a nice guy to the people in his life. But I disagree with him on the vast majority of issues. Provided that his opponent didn't have some sort of criminal history or ongoing drug problem, I'd probably always vote for a Democrat if I lived in his district. Because at the end of the day, I care a lot more about whether my representatives will enact policies I support than whether I like them as people. And no matter how great of a leader someone is, I don't want someone guiding us forward with policies that are antithetical to my beliefs.
I understand why people don't like the idea of voting straight ticket, but if you have been unable to find out information about a specific race, voting based on party ID is, generally speaking, a pretty good way to choose the candidate most likely to align with your political views.
And the data supports me on this - a huge number of people claim to be independent, but when you actually look at their voting habits, they are partisans. The idea that there is a large group of independent, undecided voters who change parties from election to election and make a big difference in the outcome is a myth.
Conversely, I could hardly ever see myself voting for a D, but I'm not going to discount that because their platform/issues/agenda may speak largely to what I feel we should do in their circle/level of influence. Dem stances for the most part don't align with my stances for a myriad of reasons, but neither do Rs, so I try to find the middle ground/person to roll with. Whether I'm joined by a large group can be debated or debunked all the live long day, but I'm sharing my own tendencies here and voting the party line doesn't work for me.
1) I did vote. 2) Why? Why are you so intent on people showing up to the polls and filling out a ballot without knowing who they're voting for?
I'm telling you there's a lack of information out there for voters and you just keep saying people should vote anyway.
No you said you only vote sometimes.
There is actually a lot of information out there about races. League of Women Voters. Your Secretary of State (or whoever your state election official is). Your County office of Elections. Your newspaper. Your local news. Your local PBS/NPR. "Lack of information" doesn't ring true in the "age of information."
Not voting for lack of information is not a valid excuse.
Thank you for the ideas. I live in a small town so I can't imagine ever finding anything about my local elections on PBS/NPR, but I will try these other sources in the future. Internet searches have never yielded much for me.
The rural/urban divide is so real. And so is gerrymandering. I'll have to pull the maps for Ohio tomorrow from my computer.
On a local level for me, we choose between democrats, extreme left democrats, and socialists. There's a Republican group that tries to promote Republican leadership in the city and it has two members. Two. Drive 15 miles west and you are in Republican country. But there are only 20,000 of the Republicans and 50,000 Democrats. You better believe they figured out a way to gerrymander around that.
Do you think passing issue 1 will help? I'm hoping so but I read one article saying it really isn't going to do much in terms of the gerrymandering
Post by penguingrrl on Nov 5, 2015 13:05:51 GMT -5
I have a very hard time believing that you can't find out something about local elections.
Hell, we had someone running a write in campaign to be elected to our school board. I googled to see what her story was and found her Facebook page. Not anything official, but her abysmal writing and memes in support of prayer in school gave me plenty of information by which to base my vote given the position she was running for.