NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you going to vote in the 2004 elections, if you are American and of age? I know the numbers now are like only 50% of legal age Americans vote for the president. That is awful, but I think if you are stupid enough to not register to vote on your own, you shouldn't vote at all.

In Australia, if you are enrolled to vote then it is mandatory (you even get fined if you don't). If you are not on the roll, you can't vote but they can't force you to vote either.

PS - Being on the electoral roll means you are also in a list for !@#$%^&* jury duty

In Australia, if you are enrolled to vote then it is mandatory (you even get fined if you don't). If you are not on the roll, you can't vote but they can't force you to vote either.

PS - Being on the electoral roll means you are also in a list for !@#$%^&* jury duty
I had no idea that was the state of affairs in Australia.

I will vote. I have only missed one election since I became eligible to vote.

In Belgium and Greece voting is still considered a duty not a right, everybody who reaches a certain age is expected to vote. I'm not sure how they handle it in Greece but in Belgium if you don't show up to cast your vote you get fined. Only people who can't vote are those who are in prison and people who can't come to vote because of medical problems. One might think this makes for more fair elections since almost the entire population votes but it has it's drawbacks. People who are not interested in politics often vote for same party each year no matter their agenda, others vote for less democratic parties as a form of protest. Several debates have risen these last few years, idea suggested to lower voting age to 16 and another idea was to change the elections and make them voluntary much like our neighbors.

if i could...i would

Of course, I'm going to vote, it's my first election to do so, and I'm definitely going to exercise my right.

Does anyone who plans NOT to vote want to reply to this topic with their rationale?

This will be my 7th presidential election vote. I'll be there.

In Australia, if you are enrolled to vote then it is mandatory (you even get fined if you don't). If you are not on the roll, you can't vote but they can't force you to vote either.

PS - Being on the electoral roll means you are also in a list for !@#$%^&* jury duty
But isn't the fine something like $50AUD? If so, that's easy for anyone to pay.

I plan on voting myself … first presidential election that I am able to do so.

Though I think this poll is going to be rather “biased” it is placed on a very active political forum (people here are generally more interested in politics then the average citizen) lol

Definitely be voting in this election, and I have hopes that the turnout will be high (at least by recent standards). Recent polls have shown that more Americans are paying attention to this presidential election than at any time since 1976. It's still only in the low 60% range, but we've been on a generally downward track since 1976--there was an upward blip in 1992. I'd love to see participation get into the 70-80% range, but I don't know what we'd have to do to get there, short of making voting mandatory, and I don't want to do that.

I tend to vote in every election that comes down the line. If I can vote on a topic, then I do my research and vote in accordance with what I feel is best.

Not just Presidential elections, either. My City Council and various County offices affect my life much more directly than the President, hence, I make damn sure my voice is heard in those elections as well. Don't even get me started on resolutions!

When it comes to voting for President, I always make sure to vote in the Primaries and I always go to the District Caucus and become a Delegate to the State Convention so that I can help elect the Elector for my District (This year I was a Delegate for Kucinich). I was even elected as a Delegate to the DNC in 2000.

If all you do is vote for one pair of men every four years, then you are throwing your vote away. Voting is not just your right, but it is your civic duty. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Do not let anyone tell you that your vote doesn't count. It does.

As for jury duty, well, in the US the right to trial by a jury of your peers is a precious freedom. Nothing sickens me more than people who try to get out of jury duty. Someday you may need a jury yourself.

You're exactly right, Keruvalia. Local races are just as important, if not more so, than the big ones, at least as far as your everyday life is concerned. Here in San Francisco, we're looking forward to Supervisor elections in the fall, and since it will be the first time we're doing it with Instant Runoff Voting, it's going to be interesting to say the least. All the local pundits are completely boggled as to how the races will shake out.

Am I voting? Yes.

Am I voting for either of those losers, Bush or Kerry? No.

You're exactly right, Keruvalia. Local races are just as important, if not more so, than the big ones, at least as far as your everyday life is concerned. Here in San Francisco, we're looking forward to Supervisor elections in the fall, and since it will be the first time we're doing it with Instant Runoff Voting, it's going to be interesting to say the least. All the local pundits are completely boggled as to how the races will shake out.
Do you mean city supervisor? Is that necessary, since the city has a mayor?

Do you mean city supervisor? Is that necessary, since the city has a mayor?
City Supervisors--sort of like a city council. They're the local representatives and the Mayor is the executive. We elected the mayor last year.

City Supervisors--sort of like a city council. They're the local representatives and the Mayor is the executive. We elected the mayor last year.
Oh, okay. So they are legislative, then.

Oh, okay. So they are legislative, then.Yeah, although a lot of the legislative work is also done via referendum. We vote on at least 15-20 propositions every election, even during primary elections. It's a lot to keep up with, but fortunately, San Francisco also puts out what is easily the most informative voter guide I've ever seen, completely nonpartisan and filled with all sorts of stuff, from what passage of the referendum would cost the city to what the long term effects are expected to be from multiple standpoints.

Yeah, although a lot of the legislative work is also done via referendum. We vote on at least 15-20 propositions every election, even during primary elections. It's a lot to keep up with, but fortunately, San Francisco also puts out what is easily the most informative voter guide I've ever seen, completely nonpartisan and filled with all sorts of stuff, from what passage of the referendum would cost the city to what the long term effects are expected to be from multiple standpoints.
That's nice, although I doubt many in San Fransico ever bother to read those things. I'm one of those people who believes referenda are unconstitutional and dangerous. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in California, 80% of the state's spending is mandated by referendum, while they also vote usually for lower taxes. That's a conflict, if you ask me, and the state wouldn't have half of the financial problems today if it weren't for that.

That's nice, although I doubt many in San Fransico ever bother to read those things. I'm one of those people who believes referenda are unconstitutional and dangerous. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in California, 80% of the state's spending is mandated by referendum, while they also vote usually for lower taxes. That's a conflict, if you ask me, and the state wouldn't have half of the financial problems today if it weren't for that.
Well, you're about half right. If my memory serves, there hasn't been a tax measure, at least not a significant one, on the ballot since the one from the 70s that limited property tax, and the state has taken it on the chin recently because of that. That's the case any time you have a state that doesn't have a diverse tax base, though--if you have a downturn in even one of your tax bases, you suffer as a result.

As far as the constitutional implications are concerned, the right to pass them is written into the state constitution, so they're legal. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter, and I tend to agree with you that they can certainly be dangerous because they require a populace that is both well-informed and who cares enough to examine the issues. In general, both of those are generally lacking. I think it's probably a case where it can work fine in small doses, but where it is open to real abuse in larger populations.

There's also the whole issue with the tyranny of the majority and the abuse of minority rights--fortunately, California has one of the most wide-ranging human rights clauses anywhere written into their Constitution, so it's less of an issue.

All in all, the system works okay for the Bay Area, but it does cause conflicts state-wide, mainly because the state is so big and so diverse. I almost think that we ought to split the state in half, right around Santa Cruz--from Santa Cruz north to Oregon would be one state and the rest could be another.

Well, you're about half right. If my memory serves, there hasn't been a tax measure, at least not a significant one, on the ballot since the one from the 70s that limited property tax, and the state has taken it on the chin recently because of that. That's the case any time you have a state that doesn't have a diverse tax base, though--if you have a downturn in even one of your tax bases, you suffer as a result.

As far as the constitutional implications are concerned, the right to pass them is written into the state constitution, so they're legal. Whether or not they're a good idea is another matter, and I tend to agree with you that they can certainly be dangerous because they require a populace that is both well-informed and who cares enough to examine the issues. In general, both of those are generally lacking. I think it's probably a case where it can work fine in small doses, but where it is open to real abuse in larger populations.

There's also the whole issue with the tyranny of the majority and the abuse of minority rights--fortunately, California has one of the most wide-ranging human rights clauses anywhere written into their Constitution, so it's less of an issue.

All in all, the system works okay for the Bay Area, but it does cause conflicts state-wide, mainly because the state is so big and so diverse. I almost think that we ought to split the state in half, right around Santa Cruz--from Santa Cruz north to Oregon would be one state and the rest could be another.
I'd agree. California would be better that way.
As for referenda, how California makes their laws is their business. I don't think it's a good idea to have them, but if that's the way the state government wishes to work, so be it. I was just saying that it'd be illegal to hold referenda nationally, while forgetting that states can form their governments however the hell they please. The problem I have with the California constitution, however, is that it assumes that everyone will just get along and love eachother. This, of course, is not so. I think that if California's state government worked as a dictatorship, and I was the dictator, I'd alter the constitution to say things a bit differently. I like how California goes the extra mile in ensuring minority rights, but they have a democracy too much like Athens. Look where that ended up.

I like the referendum in theory, but in practice, it is easily abused, and people often end up voting for things they didn't realize they were voting for. Also, in too many cases in California, people who won't be directly affected by the outcome are given a voice.

For instance, there's a lot of shit going on right now over the Bay Bridge reconstruction. After the 1989 earthquake (15 years ago now), engineers said that we needed to either retrofit the Bay Bridge or build a new one. The Bay Area, along with the state agency in charge (Caltrans) decided to build a new bridge. Now, it's been plagued with cost overruns, some because of local politics, some because Caltrans didn't lock in prices for concrete and steel like they should have and now they're getting ass-raped, but in order to get it done, the Bay Area--not just the city of San Francisco, but everyone served by the BART system--passed a measure to raise the tolls from $2 to $3 in order to get the work done.

Schwarzenegger has now threatened to pull the state's share of the funding for the bridge construction unless local legislators give into some demand, and what's more, has threatened to put a measure on the statewide ballot that would allow the state to take the money from the regional measure we passed and put it into the general fund. If we want the bridge finished, we'd have to raise the tolls to $4 or even $5 per trip to ever pay for the work. The rest of the state has no vested interest in whether or not the Bay Bridge is ever completed, so why should they vote against snatching the money? That's when a referendum sucks ass.

I like the referendum in theory, but in practice, it is easily abused, and people often end up voting for things they didn't realize they were voting for. Also, in too many cases in California, people who won't be directly affected by the outcome are given a voice.

For instance, there's a lot of shit going on right now over the Bay Bridge reconstruction. After the 1989 earthquake (15 years ago now), engineers said that we needed to either retrofit the Bay Bridge or build a new one. The Bay Area, along with the state agency in charge (Caltrans) decided to build a new bridge. Now, it's been plagued with cost overruns, some because of local politics, some because Caltrans didn't lock in prices for concrete and steel like they should have and now they're getting ass-raped, but in order to get it done, the Bay Area--not just the city of San Francisco, but everyone served by the BART system--passed a measure to raise the tolls from $2 to $3 in order to get the work done.

Schwarzenegger has now threatened to pull the state's share of the funding for the bridge construction unless local legislators give into some demand, and what's more, has threatened to put a measure on the statewide ballot that would allow the state to take the money from the regional measure we passed and put it into the general fund. If we want the bridge finished, we'd have to raise the tolls to $4 or even $5 per trip to ever pay for the work. The rest of the state has no vested interest in whether or not the Bay Bridge is ever completed, so why should they vote against snatching the money? That's when a referendum sucks ass.
Indeed. Many say that Californian politics are the future for all American politics. This is making the future look very scary.

yes i will vote, ive voted in every presidential election since jimmy carter got elected and most of the offyear and local elections too. (how are schools going to get any better if you dont vote good people onto the school board)

i have also gotten my sister to start voting. she used to think it was useless but now she never misses a chance to vote either (she's 54)

Yes i will vote. Not for bush, not for kerry, but for Ralph Nader. We need a 3 party system, and Kerry and Bush are lying Flip-Flopers.

Am I going to vote? No, simply because no matter how many "popular" Votes someone gets it doesn't matter, its all up to the number of "electoral" votes... Bush shouldn't have won in the first place according to the "popular" votes.

Am I going to vote? No, simply because no matter how many "popular" Votes someone gets it doesn't matter, its all up to the number of "electoral" votes... Bush shouldn't have won in the first place according to the "popular" votes.

Ummm ... we elect the Electors. We also elect the people who put the Supreme Court into place. Apathy is deadly. If you don't like the guy on top, don't let him start at the bottom.

I suggest you vote ... in everything, not just for Pres. You never know when that dork you can't stand who's running for State Representative will eventually be the President of the United States simply because of voter apathy.