Should I bother to vote this year?

[bhsup]

It's like the system in North America makes it as difficult as possible for you to exercise your democratic rights.

No, it most certainly does not. Well, let me backtrack. I cannot speak for Canada, Mexico, or the nations of Central America, which as we all know is a part of North America, as I really don't know about their election laws. But as for America, not North America the continent but America the country (aka USA for people who get whiney about us calling ourselves America... cuz yeah, all the other countries in the new world actually have "America" in their name as well) I can say it most certainly does not make it as difficult as possible. For one thing, there is no uniform voting authority in America. Each State makes its own voting laws, and in most States the actual elections are administered at the county level. There are 3,144 counties (and equivalents) in America, so let's not make some blanket statement about difficulties.

As for my personal experiences in life, for what they're worth, I have never had any difficulty registering or actually voting. I know, I know, anecdotal, but there you go. Of course, I don't also do stupid things like wake up on election day and go, "Golly, I never registered. I guess I'll do that today and then vote today and if they give me any hassle for doing that, I'll blame the system rather than my own bone-headed stupidity for waiting until election day to do it."

EDIT: This does not mean I haven't ever had to wait in a long line. I have. I just don't view that as "making it difficult" to vote. The process is amazingly simple. It just requires *gasp* initiative on the part of the citizen to actually be citizenish to a small degree. You know, to actually give a crap about civic duty and be willing to put the ever so slightest effort into it.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, I am saying the reason voter turnout is low is because people do not care enough about their country to actually be willing to be inconvenienced, so instead they whine and moan and want expanded voting. There is no reason why there should be expanded voting beyond election day and mail-in ballots for those that simply will not be in their locale to vote. No reason, that is, except to pander to people who care more about their personal convenience than their country.

So you oppose any measure that would increase turnout? Isn't that what Downtown said to begin with?

 

[bhsup]

If you can write a measure which will instill civic virtue in the citizenry and convince people to care and to go vote, I'll support it. I will not support any measure which tries to make voting a "ohh, gotta stop by the kwik-e-mart for a slushie on the way to work" procedure. I want people to actually think about what they're doing.

So no, I am not saying what DT is saying.

 

[Flying Pig]

'People who care' enough to vote when it's difficult correlate pretty nicely with people who have free time and transport to go and vote. Interestingly, the demographics who don't fit into that category usually vote Democrat...

 

[Traitorfish]

If you can write a measure which will instill civic virtue in the citizenry and convince people to care and to go vote, I'll support it. I will not support any measure which tries to make voting a "ohh, gotta stop by the kwik-e-mart for a slushie on the way to work" procedure. I want people to actually think about what they're doing.

So no, I am not saying what DT is saying.

What measures have conservatives undertaken to instil civic virtue and thereby increase turnout? There's going to need to be at least some, and there's going to need to be a reasonable expedition of success, to object to Downtown's claim on anything but a technical level.

 

[downtown]

One reason to vote is to push the national total of votes for congress democrats higher. One of the key outcomes of the 2012 elections was that the republicans held onto congress despite massively losing the total vote count for congress members. This highlighted the problem of gerrymandering, but that issue is still huge - is your district gerrymandered to give neighbouring districts a better chance of electing a republican?

It's not much, but it's a reason.

Yeah, there *might* be some truth to this, although I'm not sure public pressure can ever really be enough, practically, to force a change in Gerrymandering, since that's still a pretty inside baseball issue.

Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans in Maryland by nearly a 2:1 ratio, and every district but one is represented by a Democrat. My district has a pretty obnoxious shape, but I'm not sure there would be a way to credibly draw one to make it a competitive election.

 

[Tahuti]

I think gerrymandering is good since it creates regional blocs with similar political interests. As Poe's law-esque it may sound, let's go a step and say other sub-state local governments should be homogenous when it comes to political affiliation. Within these localties, a consensus culture will emerge. If you can't stand it, move.

 

[bhsup]

Why should the block be based on similar political views? It should be based on geography and administrative (counties/cities) subdivisions as best as equal population balancing allows. The views of the people in the subdivisions should never have any bearing.

 

[Harv]

On Sunday... do you know how many polling stations are located in churches?

Which is higher? Voter turnout or Church turnout?

 

[Tahuti]

Why should the block be based on similar political views? It should be based on geography and administrative (counties/cities) subdivisions as best as equal population balancing allows.

Similar political views often tend to make similar demographics after all.

 

[warpus]

Why should the block be based on similar political views? It should be based on geography and administrative (counties/cities) subdivisions as best as equal population balancing allows. The views of the people in the subdivisions should never have any bearing.

Hey, we fully agree on this point. I don't really get how you guys ended up with laws that lead to such stupid looking districts and such obvious attempts to hijack democracy.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why should the block be based on similar political views? It should be based on geography and administrative (counties/cities) subdivisions as best as equal population balancing allows. The views of the people in the subdivisions should never have any bearing.

It's supposed to edit: It can be used to [thought we were spinning off from Downtown's complaint about uncompetitive districts, missed Kasierguard's post] introduce competition into elections. Boundaries drawn with even the most unbiased intent will still often create de facto electoral biases, there's really no getting round that, so in a single member, first-past-the-post system, it makes sense to try and push against that.

The alternative is usually just politicians drawing up deliberately-biased boundaries in their favour and passing them off as accidentally-biased, and there's not much that can be done about if you accept that such biases are an inevitable outcome of your system. You'd have to find proof of unethical dealing in every such case, which would be impossible. If you actually have an alternative criteria, it allows you to override that sort of gerrymandering without having to muck-rake every single case.

Hey, we fully agree on this point. I don't really get how you guys ended up with laws that lead to such stupid looking districts and such obvious attempts to hijack democracy.

Most obviously-gerrymandered districts are designed to reduce rather than encourage competition. The standard example is the American practice of creating majority-minority districts in the hope of increasing the representation of minority candidates (well-intentioned, so far as it goes) but which has the effect of turning that district into an uncompetitive Democratic district, and sometimes turning neighbouring districts into uncompetitive Republican districts. (A devil's bargain if there ever was one!) If you enforce competition, it may lead to some counter-intuitive boundaries, but you'll be unlikely to get these monstrosities.

 

[Zelig]

If you enforce competition, it may lead to some counter-intuitive boundaries, but you'll be unlikely to get these monstrosities.

Can you link something other than buzzfeed? I categorically refuse to visit that site.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No, it most certainly does not. Well, let me backtrack. I cannot speak for Canada, Mexico, or the nations of Central America, which as we all know is a part of North America, as I really don't know about their election laws. But as for America, not North America the continent but America the country (aka USA for people who get whiney about us calling ourselves America... cuz yeah, all the other countries in the new world actually have "America" in their name as well) I can say it most certainly does not make it as difficult as possible. For one thing, there is no uniform voting authority in America. Each State makes its own voting laws, and in most States the actual elections are administered at the county level. There are 3,144 counties (and equivalents) in America, so let's not make some blanket statement about difficulties.

1. I looked up the official name of Canada. There is no "America" anywhere in it. Our country is part of the North American continent, but we do not have the word "America" as part of our name.

2. Are you saying that your country-wide elections (what we would term 'federal elections'; not sure what you call them) are subject to state election rules? That's just bizarre. I guess it explains how some polling stations (ie. those in Florida, with their 'hanging chads' that had the world laughing at them) are such a mess if you don't have standardized rules and equipment throughout your country.

3. I do agree that voting is a civic duty, and it's appalling how many people just shrug it off - women, especially.

On Sunday... do you know how many polling stations are located in churches?

Which is higher? Voter turnout or Church turnout?

I don't know about most churches. But the one where the advance poll was that I had to vote at was located in the largest Catholic church in the downtown area. And that place is always crammed full on Sundays. The congregation there wouldn't be pleased to have their church used for a Sunday election. There's an Anglican church not far away; I don't know how full they are on Sundays, but their biggest room is a bit small for a polling station, if it's expected to serve a large area of downtown.

I get that in some areas, the only building with a large open room may well be a church. But when they have a choice they should use a community centre or a public school gym, since otherwise there's a subtle voter influence toward the candidates that make a big deal of their religious beliefs in their campaign literature. It's skirting the rules separating church and state.

 

[bhsup]

1) Sorry about that, btw. I wrote that right after getting up and was in a rather cranky mood. It bled through my post as extreme snark.

2) Yes, precisely. As per our Constitution. Article 1, Section 4: "Section 4. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Mitch McConnell vs. Allison Lundergan Grimes, don't care for either and my Representative, Massie, who I really like will win with or without my vote. I don't see the need to get an absentee ballot.

 

[IglooDame]

You could always write yourself in as a candidate.

And so life imitates CFC...

Go vote, Downtown. The reasons you wouldn't are valid on their face, but still "I've voted in every election... except for that one where it didn't matter because yadda yadda *insertvalidreasonshere*" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[Mise]

And so life imitates CFC...

Go vote, Downtown. The reasons you wouldn't are valid on their face, but still "I've voted in every election... except for that one where it didn't matter because yadda yadda *insertvalidreasonshere*" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Yeah, I'd do it just to keep the record going.

 

[Tahuti]

If you enforce competition, it may lead to some counter-intuitive boundaries, but you'll be unlikely to get these monstrosities.

I kind of like the gerrymandered boundaries. They look similar to German princely ministates!

 

[Traitorfish]

I kind of like the gerrymandered boundaries. They look similar to German princely ministates!

That's a strong argument, but unfortunately they don't have the sprinkling of enclaves and enclaves-within-enclaves that gave they German principalities their charm.

(Now, America does have such admirably ridiculous boundaries, but rather than in electoral districts, they're found in the Indian reservations. I can only assume that this is some sort of reparation: that if the Indians have to live with most of their land being usurped, the stuff they have left may as well be an interesting shape.)