Support NeoGAF

[Makai]

brainchild, I dunno if this is any consolation to you, but there's actually a mechanism in place that protects us from uninformed voters:

It's not from any specific policy; it's just a natural phenomenon. Uninformed voters basically vote randomly. And since they vote randomly, they cancel each other out. Half vote for A and half vote for B. However, informed voters have a strong perference for A. 60% vote for A and 40% vote for B. It doesn't even matter if the uninformed voters are the majority of the electorate, because the signal of the informed voters cuts through the noise of the uninformed voters and A wins.

 

[brainchild]

brainchild, I dunno if this is any consolation to you, but there's actually a mechanism in place that protects us from uninformed voters:

It's not from any specific policy; it's just a natural phenomenon. Uninformed voters basically vote randomly. And since they vote randomly, they cancel each other out. Half vote for A and half vote for B. However, informed voters have a strong perference for A. 60% vote for A and 40% vote for B. It doesn't even matter if the uninformed voters are the majority of the electorate, because the signal of the informed voters cuts through the noise of the uninformed voters and A wins.

Your premise is faulty to begin with. Uniformed voters don't vote randomly as far as I'm aware, they vote by intuition, as it's all they have to rely on in order to 'inform' their vote. The nature of that intuition will vary depending on who the candidate is and how they perceive them.

In essence, there's really no telling how uninformed voters are going to vote. It doesn't make their votes random, just less predictable.

 

[Retromelon]

So, while it's silly, a big BIG reason I want to vote for Clinton is for my dad. Ya, it's superficial, it's still part of it. I mean, if she wasn't qualified or wasn't the best choice, then I wouldn't. But, I can't pretend that it;s not part of my decision making process.

I totally respect this
The only reason you should be ashamed was if your dad said john edwards was the one

 

[Makai]

Your premise is faulty to begin with. Uniformed voters don't vote randomly as far as I'm aware, they vote by intuition, as it's all they have to rely on in order to 'inform' their vote. The nature of that intuition will vary depending on who the candidate is and how they perceive them.

In essence, there's really no telling how uninformed voters are going to vote. It doesn't make their votes random, just less predictable.

If you want proof of my claim, just look at any public opinion poll about some esoteric topic. It's almost always 50/50 because they don't give a shit and randomly guess agree or disagree.

Burden of proof is on you, either way. First you have to prove that uninformed voters (which is strictly defined, mind you) have any impact on an election.

 

[User 463088]

I totally respect this
The only reason you should be ashamed was if your dad said john edwards was the one

Oh, god, he hated Edwards. When Kerry picked him as his VP, he was pisssssed. He always said there was something about that guy that he couldn't stand.

 

[shinra-bansho]

uninformed voters (which is strictly defined, mind you)

What are we defining this as actually?

I'm assuming it's all the people who don't vote the way I think they should, because I'm clearly smarter than them and the things that I think are most important should also be that for everyone else. Also, people who don't use the Oxford comma.

 

[Retromelon]

Oh, god, he hated Edwards. When Kerry picked him as his VP, he was pisssssed. He always said there was something about that guy that he couldn't stand.

Sounds like your old man had a reliable sense of intuition.

 

[Makai]

What are we defining this as actually?

I'm assuming it's all the people who don't vote the way I think they should, because I'm clearly smarter than them and the things that I think are most important should also be that for everyone else. Also, people who don't use the Oxford comma.

Cannot match a word from this group:

Democrat / Republican

with a word from this group:

Liberal / Conservative

 

[brainchild]

If you want proof of my claim, just look at any public opinion poll about some esoteric topic. It's almost always 50/50 because they don't give a shit and randomly guess agree or disagree.

Burden of proof is on you, either way. First you have to prove that uninformed voters (which is strictly defined, mind you) have any impact on an election.

That's not proof, and correlation does not imply causation.

I never made the claim that uninformed voters have had a material impact on an election, but it isn't even debatable that they have the POTENTIAL to do so. If every voter was able to prove that they understood what they were voting for then there is no potential for there to be any votes from voters who don't understand what they're voting on. I don't see anything controversial or objectionable about such a conclusion.

What are we defining this as actually?

I'm assuming it's all the people who don't vote the way I think they should, because I'm clearly smarter than them and the things that I think are most important should also be that for everyone else. Also, people who don't use the Oxford comma.

People who don't know anything about politics or the candidates but vote because they've been pressured by society to do so. From the people I know who do this, many of them simply go by the one who has the most likable personality from the little they've seen of them.

 

[Makai]

That's not proof, and correlation does not imply causation.

I never made the claim that uninformed voters have had a material impact on an election, but it isn't even debatable that they have the POTENTIAL to do so. If every voter was able to prove that they understood what they were voting for then there is no potential for there to be any votes from voters who don't understand what they're voting on. I don't see anything controversial or objectionable about such a conclusion.

Well, I'm debating it. The null hypothesis is they make no difference. You gotta reject that and then demonstrate that the effect is detrimental to substantiate your concern. I think if you actually took the time to investigate this, you would see that uninformed voters pose no threat at all to our democracy. However, we know that disenfranchisement leads to unrepresentative policy.

 

[shinra-bansho]

So basically vast swathes of the electorate should be disenfranchised in an undemocratic manner. Most people don't care greatly about or have time for politics, policy, economics, current events, foreign affairs, and so on and so forth, despite the outcomes having impacts on their lives. They still are ultimately capable of making self-determined judgment calls on what they perceive to be in their self-interest, and they get to do so because of that potential impact on their lives.

I don't think anyone is particularly pressured by society into voting, the high degree of apathy and low turnout rates certainly don't indicate such effect. When people vote, it's because they care enough to want to for whatever reason they so desire. And it's perfectly fine that way.

Everyone has the potential to influence the outcome, and everyone has the right to. Because it's a democracy.

Why should anyone have to prove to a degree you're personally satisfied with that they're voting for reasons that you're personally satisfied with?

 

[Makai]

I'm a pretty dispassionate guy when it comes to policy, but voting rights is an exception. Voting is the most effective way dissatisfied citizens communicate to their government. Disenfranchise them, and they may be without recourse.

 

[brainchild]

Well, I'm debating it. The null hypothesis is they make no difference. You gotta reject that and then demonstrate that the effect is detrimental to substantiate your concern. I think if you actually took the time to investigate this, you would see that uninformed voters pose no threat at all to our democracy. However, we know that disenfranchisement leads to unrepresentative policy.

And now the burden of proof lies on you for making such a claim.

Without standardized testing to know which voters are informed and which are not, there is no way to tell how many uninformed voters show up on election day and vote. With that being an unknown variable, we have to assume that any voter COULD (not would) make an uninformed vote and could potentially affect the outcome of the election (even if that's not what actually ends up happening).

It seems that what you're actually arguing is the likelihood of uninformed voters affecting an election. However, I'm taking about the POSSIBILITY of uninformed voters affecting an election. I've explain why it's possible, now I'd love to see you explain to me why it's not possible.

Also, as I've said before, I do not advocate for disenfranchisement. It's a bit intellectually dishonest to say that that's what I'm doing when I've shown why I'm not. My ideas are probably impractical to implement but they would still allow for representative democracy while disenfranchisement would be pretty easy to implement and would be unrepresentative. There's a huge difference between the two.

 

[pigeon]

With something as important as voting? HELL YES. There are lots of things that disadvantaged citizens have to make time for, like long recurring interviews with their county-assisted case workers and doctors appointments. These classes would be on the same level of importance.

What you would rapidly find is that all those disadvantaged citizens would skip those classes, because the right to eat ends up being more important than the right to vote. Your individual vote is unlikely to make a difference to your life -- certainly not a bigger difference than spending those hours earning a wage.

This isn't because they don't understand what voting is about -- they understand its value to them perfectly. The cold-blooded economic calculation for people who are poor is that, if it takes any work at all to vote, you shouldn't do it.

In all likelihood, you're right. However, theoretically, it is possible to devise a system that doesn't inevitably result in throwing the disadvantaged under a bus.

But really, the point in all this is that I would like a system that made it necessary for voters to understand what they're voting for and how it affects the country. Obviously, I don't advocate a system that aims to shut out people who are unable to obtain this education, but the two concepts needn't be inextricably linked.

How would you judge whether voters were educated enough to understand what they were voting for?

If somebody voted for Ron Paul because they believe we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, are they educated enough to vote? I mean, that's a really stupid thing to think, based on a huge misunderstanding of how our government works. Should we ban that guy from voting? What if he votes for Paul Ryan because he believes in dynamic scoring? What if he just believes that same-sex marriage is a sin and he'll vote for anybody who believes that too?

Ultimately all disagreement can be considered a consequence of incomplete education, if you're willing to.

 

[Makai]

Also, as I've said before, I do not advocate for disenfranchisement. It's a bit intellectually dishonest to say that that's what I'm doing when I've shown why I'm not. My ideas are probably impractical to implement but they would still allow for representative democracy while disenfranchisement would be pretty easy to implement and would be unrepresentative. There's a huge difference between the two.

You are advocating for a way to screen people out of the voting booth. If you revoke someone's right to vote, you have disenfranchised them. That's what it means.

 

[brainchild]

So basically vast swathes of the electorate should be disenfranchised in an undemocratic manner. Most people don't care greatly about or have time for politics, policy, economics, current events, foreign affairs, and so on and so forth, despite the outcomes having impacts on their lives. They still are ultimately capable of making self-determined judgment calls on what they perceive to be in their self-interest, and they get to do so because of that potential impact on their lives.

I don't think anyone is particularly pressured by society into voting, the high degree of apathy and low turnout rates certainly don't indicate such effect. When people vote, it's because they care enough to want to for whatever reason they so desire. And it's perfectly fine that way.

Everyone has the potential to influence the outcome, and everyone has the right to. Because it's a democracy.

Why should anyone have to prove to a degree you're personally satisfied with that they're voting for reasons that you're personally satisfied with?

For the billionth time, I'm not talking about disenfranchisement. I'm really not. I do not believe that any able bodied voter with a sound mind--even if severely disadvantaged--necessarily has to be prevented from voting.

Also, voting is not merely a popularity contest. The candidates aren't just running for show. It isn't your civic duty just for the hell of it. The democracy exist as a means for the people to ultimately determine how this country will be governed and serve the best interests of the people. If you're not voting to for those reasons, then democracy loses all meaning.

We might has well have robots fill in for us if people aren't voting under the pretense of democratic voting in the first place.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Except you are.

As already noted by pretty much everyone, you're advocating for barriers to prevent people from voting, for eliminating their right to vote because their reasons do not match or meet some standard you seem to think yourself the arbiter of.

Advocating for what would in practice disenfranchise minorities, people with less formal education, people of lower socioeconomic status.

Regardless of your protestation that some magical theoretical implementation would avoid all of this. These magical "theoretical" scenarios seem to be something of a refrain.

 

[Makai]

I've been reading Lucky Ducky comics after being introduced by the NotAllRepublicans thread. They're damn good:

 

[brainchild]

What you would rapidly find is that all those disadvantaged citizens would skip those classes, because the right to eat ends up being more important than the right to vote. Your individual vote is unlikely to make a difference to your life -- certainly not a bigger difference than spending those hours earning a wage.

This isn't because they don't understand what voting is about -- they understand its value to them perfectly. The cold-blooded economic calculation for people who are poor is that, if it takes any work at all to vote, you shouldn't do it.



How would you judge whether voters were educated enough to understand what they were voting for?

If somebody voted for Ron Paul because they believe we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, are they educated enough to vote? I mean, that's a really stupid thing to think, based on a huge misunderstanding of how our government works. Should we ban that guy from voting? What if he votes for Paul Ryan because he believes in dynamic scoring? What if he just believes that same-sex marriage is a sin and he'll vote for anybody who believes that too?

Ultimately all disagreement can be considered a consequence of incomplete education, if you're willing to.

I think many of the poor people you're referring to would probably skip voting altogether if they're in such a survivalist mode.

Anyway, the voters would be certified after proving that they understand the issues and know which candidates represent them (by the time of the exam). Those who feel confident that they can pass the exam without classes can opt out of them.

You are advocating for a way to screen people out of the voting booth. If you revoke someone's right to vote, you have disenfranchised them. That's what it means.

Except that this system wouldn't inherently do that. Anyone who takes the classes would pass the test. Every effort would be made to ensure that the voters would be able to attend the classes (at no charge to them) and the exam only serves as a means of proof that they understand what they're voting on. The test would be easy and the only way you'd get screened out of the voting booth is if you literally were incapable of learning from the classes.

Now, I do believe that anyone who cannot understand what they're voting for should have their right to vote revoked, so if you wanna call that disenfranchisement, then yeah, I would support that form of it.

Except you are.

As already noted by pretty much everyone, you're advocating for barriers to prevent people from voting, because their reasons do not match or meet some standard you seem to think yourself the arbiter of.

Advocating for what would in practice disenfranchise minorities, people with less formal education, people of lower socioeconomic status.

Regardless of your protestation that some magical theoretical implementation would avoid all of this. These magical "theoretical" scenarios seem to be something of a refrain.

I disagree. Minorities that care about their right to vote should be able to attend the classes and pass the test. I don't believe those things would stand in the way of them being able to vote.

Implementing such a system is where things get impractical, but if it was implemented, minorities wouldn't necessarily be screened out of voting, which is what would happen with disenfranchisement.

As I said to Makai just now, the only form of disenfranchisement I support is revoking the voting rights of people who have a learning disability that makes it impossible for them to understand what they're voting on.

EDIT:


Thinking about this a bit more, I wouldn't even be opposed to compromising by having mandatory classes that automatically certify you for voting upon completion without a test. The push for literacy is more important to me than how well they perform on the test. There is a high likelihood that most uninformed voters will have learned more than they would have without the classes, and that in and of itself is a significant improvement over what we have now.

 

[pigeon]

I think many of the poor people you're referring to would probably skip voting altogether if they're in such a survivalist mode.

That's exactly why voting needs to be made easier to do, not harder. People are already disenfranchised purely by the lash of hunger. That's why mandatory early voting is one of the most important issues today.

Thinking about this a bit more, I wouldn't even be opposed to compromising by having mandatory classes that automatically certify you for voting upon completion without a test. The push for literacy is more important to me than how well they perform on the test. There is a high likelihood that most uninformed voters will have learned more than they would have without the classes, and that in and of itself is a significant improvement over what we have now.

So it's a pure time tax. Only people who can afford to spend X hours of their life doing essentially nothing productive should be allowed to vote.

This is, honestly, much worse than probably any poll taxes that have previously existed in America. I can't tell whether you really don't understand how impossible this condition would be for many, many people and how effectively disenfranchising it would be.

 

[brainchild]

That's exactly why voting needs to be made easier to do, not harder. People are already disenfranchised purely by the lash of hunger. That's why mandatory early voting is one of the most important issues today.



So it's a pure time tax. Only people who can afford to spend X hours of their life doing essentially nothing productive should be allowed to vote.

This is, honestly, much worse than probably any poll taxes that have previously existed in America. I can't tell whether you really don't understand how impossible this condition would be for many, many people and how effectively disenfranchising it would be.

I don't see how taking 4-6 hours out of your busy schedule every FOUR YEARS is disenfranchising, but OK.

I could sort of understand the problem with the test. Even though I don't think anyone would fail the test, I suppose the idea of a performance-based criteria for voting doesn't sit well with some people. However, going to a class for a minimal amount of time where it's impossible to fail hardly seems like a problem worth getting up in arms about.

 

[Gotchaye]

I mean, I wouldn't bother voting if I had to sit through four to six hours of classes before they'd let me vote for the candidate I was going to vote for anyway. I got Netflix.

 

[brainchild]

I mean, I wouldn't bother voting if I had to sit through four to six hours of classes before they'd let me vote for the candidate I was going to vote for anyway. I got Netflix.

Lol. Oh well, it's not like this would ever happen anyway.

 

[pigeon]

I don't see how taking 4-6 hours out of your busy schedule every FOUR YEARS is disenfranchising, but OK.

I mean, because people have lives?

I seriously don't understand how you don't understand this. It can take weeks to find the time for my family to go to the doctor for an hour to talk about things that might potentially kill us, and we're filthy rich. The voter ID laws that the GOP keeps passing are getting struck down for imposing time and cost requirements that are much less significant than this.

Real people have time pressures on them constantly. Jobs are not friendly to needing random time periods off. If you are hourly, you don't get paid during that period, and you probably need to. Children are not a thing that is easily rescheduled or moved around. Child care has universal, mandatory scheduling requirements (not to mention that it's absurdly expensive).

All this in pursuit of the belief that the real problem facing America today isn't that we have strident political disagreements or that we're undergoing a constitutional crisis, it's that the people who disagree with you are just dumb. It's like a parody of what people imagine the nanny state to be.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The issue is the principle of the matter. Once we start arguing about who qualifies as being "smart" enough to deserve having a say in governance, we're basically arguing for technocracy and not democracy. Don't get me wrong, I think there's a legitimate debate that can be had about that, but you have to take the good and the bad with democracy or you're not really taking it at all (that's kind of the whole point).

 

[brainchild]

I mean, because people have lives?

I seriously don't understand how you don't understand this. It can take weeks to find the time for my family to go to the doctor for an hour to talk about things that might potentially kill us, and we're filthy rich. The voter ID laws that the GOP keeps passing are getting struck down for imposing time and cost requirements that are much less significant than this.

Real people have time pressures on them constantly. Jobs are not friendly to needing random time periods off. If you are hourly, you don't get paid during that period, and you probably need to. Children are not a thing that is easily rescheduled or moved around. Child care has universal, mandatory scheduling requirements (not to mention that it's absurdly expensive).

All this in pursuit of the belief that the real problem facing America today isn't that we have strident political disagreements or that we're undergoing a constitutional crisis, it's that the people who disagree with you are just dumb. It's like a parody of what people imagine the nanny state to be.

I understand that it might be difficult. I just believe that it's important enough to make time for.

Also, I never once made the argument that I'm advocating for this because people who disagree with me are dumb. If the voters are informed, but vote against my best interests, I'm have no problem accepting that. I just want our voting system to work like a real democracy and that can't happen if there's a significant portion of voters whose votes don't actually represent the interests of the people, but the ignorance of the people.

The issue is the principle of the matter. Once we start arguing about who qualifies as being "smart" enough to deserve having a say in governance, we're basically arguing for technocracy and not democracy. Don't get me wrong, I think there's a legitimate debate that can be had about that, but you have to take the good and the bad with democracy or you're not really taking it at all (that's kind of the whole point).

I made a concession on that point. Just show up for class and get your certificate. The idea is to get them more informed than they already are. I don't really care that much about the proof that they're informed.

 

[ivysaur12]

Push notifications on my VOTE.GOV app reminding you to vote.

Sigh. One day. One day.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

I understand that it might be difficult. I just believe that it's important enough to make time for.

Also, I never once made the argument that I'm advocating for this because people who disagree with me are dumb. If the voters are informed, but vote against my best interests, I'm have no problem accepting that. I just want our voting system to work like a real democracy and that can't happen if there's a significant portion of voters whose votes don't actually represent the interests of the people, but the ignorance of the people.


I made a concession on that point. Just show up for class and get your certificate. The idea is to get them more informed than they already are. I don't really care that much about the proof that they're informed.

Citation needed for the bolded, and to a greater extent, definition dispute.

Democracy is not about voters being informed or having the results match our expectations of what the "interests of the people" really is. Perhaps the interests of the people is in having a democratic system that allows them to be as ignorant or informed as they want. How would we even determine what people's interest should be or whether they're conforming to those interests by their votes? What distinguishes the vote of an ignorant person from an informed person if they vote for the same thing, intent/motivation are not and should not be preconditions to voting.

The whole point of democracy is about everyone being able to vote and participate in governance without restrictions. It's the prerogative of the masses to vote however they want, misinformed or otherwise. I would be equally supportive of people who choose their votes randomly or always fill out 'none' or 'other'. That's the beauty of democracy, warts and all. It's not about getting the right or wrong answer, it's about giving people the self-determination to make the decision regardless of the outcome.

I mean, who would even get to decide what 'information' is mandatory for people to be exposed to in these classes before they're allowed to vote? Should such a program be itself put to a vote or are the masses too ignorant to be allowed to vote on it before undergoing the very training they're voting on? Any program of this nature implicitly draws a line between people who deserve a vote and people who don't. That is inherently anti-democratic in of itself.

 

[pigeon]

I understand that it might be difficult. I just believe that it's important enough to make time for.

Also, I never once made the argument that I'm advocating for this because people who disagree with me are dumb. If the voters are informed, but vote against my best interests, I'm have no problem accepting that. I just want our voting system to work like a real democracy and that can't happen if there's a significant portion of voters whose votes don't actually represent the interests of the people, but the ignorance of the people.

Definitionally, a real democracy is one in which as many people exercise the democratic franchise as possible, and as few people as possible are restricted from it. That's what democracy means!

There is no safety valve in democracy for ensuring that people are really voting for their own interests. It's the job of politicians to communicate, as effectively as possible, the consequences of voting for them or of voting for someone else, and let people rely on that information to make decisions. If politicians are failing at that, then they're failing at that, and the solution is to get better politicians. If some people just make bad decisions anyway, then they just make bad decisions anyway, but that's why we have like 300 million other people, to overrule those bad decisions.

 

[Maledict]

I think its very easy for people to not understand the symbolic nature of a woman, or a black man, or a gay person, achieving the highest office in the land. You often get looked down on for considering it a reason to vote for someone, as if it's somehow lesser than other reasons.

All I know is, were a gay MP in the running to be Prime Minister I would do everything I could to get them elected. The signal that would send to gay kids growing up and gay people everywhere would be amazing. I can only imagine the same is true for women, who *still* after so many years get disadvantaged heavily in many different ways in their life.

 

[Coriolanus]

All the concerns over "informed voters", whatever the fuck that may be, can be ameliorated by introducing that mythical Being A Functional Adult class in high school, which should also school teenagers into critical thinking methods. After that, que sera sera.
-
Also today's teacher, on international environmental laws, just blamed the US and the USSR for most of the current wars in the world.

Yes.

 

[User 406]

You know, I don't care anymore, so I'll just come out and say it: I want a woman president of the United States of America, my country of birth and choice, preferably one that isn't an idiot or a sociopath or both. If there's a way that I can literally vote for Hillary Clinton with my vagina and present evidence afterward that I did so, I'll do it. Considering that we are over fifty percent of the population and well over half of college entrants and graduates at this point, American representation of women in government is pitiful. The fact that dozens of countries, including Pakistan - where a young girl was shot in the fucking face for her political activism, which has included agitation against the local Taliban for their rules against girls attending school - have had female heads of government, yet the alleged leading light of democracy on this earth has not, is fucking pitiful. Shout it loud and proud, Hillary.

I will punch that chad out of the ballot with the congealed blood from my ovaries, comrades. Fucking watch me. I fucking dare you. Call me on the subject of "identity politics" when a man is challenged for legitimacy of any political action based on the behavior of his dick in, I dunno, the presence of Angela Merkel's cleavage, in the way that we womenz are questioned on our ability to refrain from launching all of the nukes in the time of the dreaded blood moon.

Hell fuckin yeah.

 

[dramatis]

And now the burden of proof lies on you for making such a claim.

This is a pretty classic tactic of dodging to avoid having to present evidence for your argument. History already shows literacy tests disenfranchise voters. You say your hypothetical test won't, but that's only a thought, not practiced, real world proof of anything.

If you want to argue guidance, you should come with hard evidence that the nuance makes a difference in how the outcome would be different. Right now, you've been spectacularly unconvincing at arguing why the education of the voter is more important than the right of the voter to vote. You won't acknowledge that what you want is limiting the voter pool to who you want in it and therefore undemocratic.

Sit down and think it over instead of digging in your heels. If you really are so based in education and rational thinking, you should be reassessing your argument.

 

[BertramCooper]

Timely story, Ben Carson is already proposing turning department of education into a department of thought correction

That's one way to achieve conformity.

Cool, let's start with places like Liberty University.

 

[Chichikov]

You know, I don't care anymore, so I'll just come out and say it: I want a woman president of the United States of America, my country of birth and choice, preferably one that isn't an idiot or a sociopath or both. If there's a way that I can literally vote for Hillary Clinton with my vagina and present evidence afterward that I did so, I'll do it. Considering that we are over fifty percent of the population and well over half of college entrants and graduates at this point, American representation of women in government is pitiful. The fact that dozens of countries, including Pakistan - where a young girl was shot in the fucking face for her political activism, which has included agitation against the local Taliban for their rules against girls attending school - have had female heads of government, yet the alleged leading light of democracy on this earth has not, is fucking pitiful. Shout it loud and proud, Hillary.

I will punch that chad out of the ballot with the congealed blood from my ovaries, comrades. Fucking watch me. I fucking dare you. Call me on the subject of "identity politics" when a man is challenged for legitimacy of any political action based on the behavior of his dick in, I dunno, the presence of Angela Merkel's cleavage, in the way that we womenz are questioned on our ability to refrain from launching all of the nukes in the time of the dreaded blood moon.

I said the same thing about Obama, all things being equal, or kinda equal, or sort of, in the same ballpark, I would vote for the unrepresentative minority (or majority, as it's the case here).
I still support Sanders, I'm not a huge fan of the Clintons policy wise and Sanders is just much closer to where I stand politically, but once Hillary wins the nomination I would not only be happy to cast her a vote, I would be proud to vote the first woman into the white house.
You can't at the same time want fair representation for women and then refuse to consider that issue when casting the ballot, I'd happily affirmative action my ballot.

I also feel that having a commander in chief who personally murdered people with her own bare hands will come useful.

 

[Big Green Anus]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/562a3e3ee4b0ec0a389418ec
Hillary has stopped taking their contributions it seems. Personally very happy about that.

I hope she stopped accepting this for personal reasons and not political reasons

 

[Coriolanus]

I also feel that having a commander in chief who personally murdered people with her own bare hands will come useful.

Didn't do the british a whole lot of good.

 

[BertramCooper]

I'm still fine with people for voting for Bernie in the primaries as a show of solidarity with him and his ideology, especially if Hillary really starts to pull away.

But I think one can still vote for him while recognizing that he won't (and shouldn't) win the nomination.

 

[User 406]

I hope she stopped accepting this for personal reasons and not political reasons

Fundamentally, this doesn't matter. I'm happy to vote for the most self-serving wind direction checker out there as long as the wind they're checking is ours. We want our reps to have their fingers in the air, and to pay attention to what we want.

But it could easily be both, you know. Politicians have to deal with the realities of our system, and the special interests and money that can kill or seal a candidacy, but they're still people who started this path with the desire to make a difference. It may be that she feels good now that she's finally able to let that particular compromise of necessity go. The important thing is that she is able to cast them off without risk, whether she's been wanting to do it herself or because she knows her voters will respond to it.

 

[HylianTom]

My biggest hope? Not only that women carry her to a win - I hope to see their votes trickle to downticket races, giving her an easier Congressional landscape to work with. If it's a big enough effect, the House goes from a tiny possibility to a tangible possibility. Meanwhile, we'd likely have added Senate margins, which would help greatly going into the relatively unfriendly 2018 Senate map.

(Entertaining side note: every once in a while this topic will come up at FreeRepublic, and you can see them worry about the female vote - even going so far as to openly regret women having the right to vote. Even female freepers are angry/worried about what women will do next year.)

 

[BertramCooper]

In the case that they literally cannot comprehend the concept of politics due to some kind of learning disability, they have no business voting.

I cannot believe someone actually posted a statement like this in PoliGAF - with sincerity.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think its very easy for people to not understand the symbolic nature of a woman, or a black man, or a gay person, achieving the highest office in the land. You often get looked down on for considering it a reason to vote for someone, as if it's somehow lesser than other reasons.

All I know is, were a gay MP in the running to be Prime Minister I would do everything I could to get them elected. The signal that would send to gay kids growing up and gay people everywhere would be amazing. I can only imagine the same is true for women, who *still* after so many years get disadvantaged heavily in many different ways in their life.

What if the gay MP wasn't good at his job or had terrible views? Does his sexuality and the potential benefit of his example trump actual merit? I'm all for positive images but I think we cross into questionable territory when we start rewarding people simply because it'll look good or help others feel good. I don't want Frank Ocean Grammy moments in politics or the work place.

 

[Chichikov]

What if the gay MP wasn't good at his job or had terrible views? Does his sexuality and the potential benefit of his example trump actual merit? I'm all for positive images but I think we cross into questionable territory when we start rewarding people simply because it'll look good or help others feel good. I don't want Frank Ocean Grammy moments in politics or the work place.

The fact that I believe that a situation where you had a female president is better than one where you only had men does not mean that I think that every woman candidate is the right choice for the office.
But if you like me prefer to live in a country where you had presidents of all genders, you need to ask yourself what are you willing to do to make it happen.

Because we know, doing nothing (which is exactly what the people who push the "reverse racism" as an attack on policies like affirmative action want us to do) usually means no change.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

I cannot believe someone actually posted a statement like this in PoliGAF - with sincerity.

I remember seeing someone post about segregation being a good thing for African-Americans because "they were with black teachers who cared" and were serious about it.

The poster (allegedly) was black...

*facepalm*

 

[Cheebo]

I think brain child's bizarre belief that people need to take 6 hours of classes to vote is out of some belief that a informed populace would have been more likely to vote for a candidate like Bernie. Regardless of the fact it would just result in a huge chunk of the Democratic Party staying home. Hell look at how bad democratic turn out is in off year elections and there are no classes required there. It's already too hard to vote for millions and millions of people as is.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think brain child's bizarre belief that people need to take 6 hours of classss to vote is out of some belief that a informed populace would have been more likely to vote for a candidate like Bernie. Regardless of the fact it would just result in a huge chunk of the Democratic Party staying home. Hell look at how bad democratic turn out is in off year elections and there are no classes required there. It's already too hard to vote for millions and millions of people as is.

Indeed. We need more options to vote not less.

 

[Konka]

I cannot believe someone actually posted a statement like this in PoliGAF - with sincerity.

No less someone who paints himself as being progressive...

 

[RustyNails]

I don't see how taking 4-6 hours out of your busy schedule every FOUR YEARS is disenfranchising, but OK.

I could sort of understand the problem with the test. Even though I don't think anyone would fail the test, I suppose the idea of a performance-based criteria for voting doesn't sit well with some people. However, going to a class for a minimal amount of time where it's impossible to fail hardly seems like a problem worth getting up in arms about.

Have you ever stepped out of your comfy tower and been to...earth. First of all what you're proposing is utterly ludicrous. No one will show up to your test locations. We have only 60% of the citizenry participating in the elections in the first place. Throwing this dumb rule in there will make the voter turnout even worse. The less turnout is there, the better it is for Republican party. Fact. Secondly, people have lives. Even 1 hour out of a year seems inconsequential to you, but its important to them. If they would rather spend it with their family, their friends, school or work, it's very hard to sacrifice. Just as an example, me and my wife have been trying to figure out how to get our car tested for emissions. Easy enough right? It will hardly take more than 10 minutes at the facility. But we've been schedluing and rescheduling for weeks now. It's just that difficult, especially when there is a kid in the equation and you both are working parents.

This kind of nonsense will backfire tremendously and destroy our voter turnout. Seems very close to "education camps" in my opinion. There are better ways to achieve political literacy without having a top down approach.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Well, it also seems to stem from some weird idea that there's some obligation in democratic system that a voter uses their vote in the "right" way for the "interests of the people", whatever that's supposed to mean. Maybe that's also just a verbose way of saying that people would feelthebern.

(It also only seems to apply to presidential elections, rather than any more local representative elections for some reason.)

As opposed to what pigeon and Brawno describe above i.e. generally accepted definitions of representative democracy as systems of governance that allow participation by individuals through election of whoever they deem best reflects their views, values, interests, and so forth, for whatever rationale they decide.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bush-campaign-downsizes-in-the-face-of-trump-strength/2015/10/23/4908181e-79a9-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html

From a quick look, something like 80% of his donors actually can't reinvest even if they wanted to anyway. They're at max.

 

[NeoXChaos]

But one Bush fundraiser who requested anonymity to speak freely said: “It feels very much like a death spiral, and it breaks my heart. I don’t know anyone who wants to reinvest now.” The campaign, this person added, has been “head-scratchingly bad in every element. I wouldn’t be shocked in 60 days from now if he wasn’t in the race.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bush-campaign-downsizes-in-the-face-of-trump-strength/2015/10/23/4908181e-79a9-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html