Igor @ 19/7/2017 13:02

LEL implying that one vote will ever influence an election is ridiculous. There is no logical argument for voting in a presidential election. The only argument is emotional/symbolic

So you don't think local or state elections are important either?

You're part of the problem.

Mercator @ 19/7/2017 13:06

Having Winner Takes All for the election and not having it a holiday means that voter turnout will never be high.

100% agree with this. Not making a national holiday caters to the people who can take time off work to go vote.

I think vote by mail in a lot of states is helping with this issue, though.

vladykins @ 19/7/2017 15:04

Igor @ 19/7/2017 15:02 LEL implying that one vote will ever influence an election is ridiculous. There is no logical argument for voting in a presidential election. The only argument is emotional/symbolic And when a million people feel that same way...

i communicate with all of them through telekinesis

Maddie @ 19/7/2017 15:06

Igor @ 19/7/2017 13:02 LEL implying that one vote will ever influence an election is ridiculous. There is no logical argument for voting in a presidential election. The only argument is emotional/symbolic So you don't think local or state elections are important either? You're part of the problem.

For those that are illiterate...

I'm almost positive we've had this discussion before, local/state/congressional elections are a completely different ball game.

Maddie @ 19/7/2017 15:08

Mercator @ 19/7/2017 13:06 Having Winner Takes All for the election and not having it a holiday means that voter turnout will never be high. 100% agree with this. Not making a national holiday caters to the people who can take time off work to go vote. I think vote by mail in a lot of states is helping with this issue, though.

No, the answer is definitely to make it harder to vote. Especially those pesky minorities and women-folk. They don't really need to vote, do they?

(:

spindoctor02 @ 19/7/2017 15:13

Maddie @ 19/7/2017 15:08 Mercator @ 19/7/2017 13:06 Having Winner Takes All for the election and not having it a holiday means that voter turnout will never be high. 100% agree with this. Not making a national holiday caters to the people who can take time off work to go vote. I think vote by mail in a lot of states is helping with this issue, though. No, the answer is definitely to make it harder to vote. Especially those pesky minorities and women-folk. They don't really need to vote, do they? (:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-seeks-to-close-federal-election-agency-1500325218

Maddie @ 19/7/2017 14:05

spindoctor02 @ 19/7/2017 12:57 My current state (Arkansas) was projected to be the Reddest state (even more so than Wyoming, which is really tough) in the last election, and I still went out and voted. Sometimes, in situations like that, while you know your presidential vote essentially doesn't count, the votes for all the other positions still do count, and can be even more powerful. Then again, I have some of the dumbest Reps and Senators in Congress, so...yeah. And my state always goes blue. I knew Hillary was projected to win the nomination in my constituency and my state and I still went out and voted for Bernie. And voted Hillary in the general even though I knew my state would go blue. I just look at not voting as a complete slap in the face to everyone in American history who fought and even risked their lives for the right to vote, and also all those across the world who wish they had a voice. Regardless of one's feelings on the flaws in our electoral system, voting is still important. It makes a huge difference in local and state elections especially.

Voting matters a ton at the local level, a little less at the state level, and not at all at the national level.

When both candidates are obvious liars and all around horrible human beings, people tend not to bother voting.

My last 2 statements together are the reason the whole system is fucked.

Primate @ 19/7/2017 15:17

When both candidates are obvious liars and all around horrible human beings, people tend not to bother voting.

Which is why horrible human beings keep getting elected.

More people actively chose 'No Vote' over any of the official candidates, by a wide margin.

Why isn't 'No Vote' currently in the white house?

Maddie @ 19/7/2017 13:56

I feel like this has moved from how Hillary lost to why Trump won...and those two things are different, IMO.

I disagree.

spindoctor02 @ 19/7/2017 14:18

Primate @ 19/7/2017 15:17 When both candidates are obvious liars and all around horrible human beings, people tend not to bother voting. Which is why horrible human beings keep getting elected. More people actively chose 'No Vote' over any of the official candidates, by a wide margin. Why isn't 'No Vote' currently in the white house?

The popular vote has never had any bearing on who sits in the white house, yet that's the vote that most people care about. SMDH

Bitching at the non-voters is stupid and not productive at all. You can blame them until your blue in the face but you're not going to change anything. Rather than looking at the social forces that caused people to not want to vote, or in some cases not able to. Like spin said, what the Republican party has been always good at is keeping their party united and getting their voters out of their cotton farms and into the voting booths.

Horrible human beings keep getting elected because it has been a free for all, cash grab since before anyone here was born.

spindoctor02 @ 19/7/2017 13:18

Primate @ 19/7/2017 15:17 When both candidates are obvious liars and all around horrible human beings, people tend not to bother voting. Which is why horrible human beings keep getting elected. More people actively chose 'No Vote' over any of the official candidates, by a wide margin. Why isn't 'No Vote' currently in the white house?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/01/30/candidates-legal-name-change-puts-none-above-on-ballot-in-canada.html