US Election 2008 live thread

[Eddie7]

I got a random text message earlier that said, "the lines are too long... so offices will open on Wednesday for those voting for McCain."

Ahh, that's reassuringly good politics. :D

Variations of these have been going around for months. Democrats will be voting on Wednesdays, or if it's raining the polling stations will remain open. If anyone actually falls for them, they deserve what they get.

[Guest kos]

The glow was actually all the radioactive dumps from our nuclear power plants. The Bush Administration plowed over them as a means of safe disposal.

Maybe he was envious of Tsernobil; There can be only one!

[KayleeSaeihr]

I got a random text message earlier that said, "the lines are too long... so offices will open on Wednesday for those voting for McCain."

Ahh, that's reassuringly good politics. :D

Variations of these have been going around for months. Democrats will be voting on Wednesdays, or if it's raining the polling stations will remain open. If anyone actually falls for them, they deserve what they get.

I'm glad Australia has compulsory voting.

[cdrdash]

I went to vote early today (8:30 am). It only took about 45 minutes. I was surprised that it didn't take longer since the line was pretty long.

It's pushing a box on a screen, isn't it?

How long can that take?

In California its drawing a line between two boxes. I had 12 propositions to vote for. And about 6 to 8 candidates to vote for. So it can take a few minutes to mark the ballot and then go back and double check it. However, I voted by mail two weeks ago so I didn't have to wait in any lines or worry about how fast I filled out my ballot.

Cathy

Vote for Obama!! In California ... Vote NO on 8. Vote NO on 4. There that's my politicking for today.

[Næt.]

I got a random text message earlier that said, "the lines are too long... so offices will open on Wednesday for those voting for McCain."

Ahh, that's reassuringly good politics. :D

Variations of these have been going around for months. Democrats will be voting on Wednesdays, or if it's raining the polling stations will remain open. If anyone actually falls for them, they deserve what they get.

I'm glad Australia has compulsory voting.

Surely the right not to vote is equally important as the right to?

[Eddie7]

Indeed. I've said before on here that the day compulsory voting is introduced will be the day I stop voting.

[TheFool]

Well they say you have to vote, but nothing stops you just going in and submitting a blank ballot.

[Eddie7]

But why should you have to do that if you genuinely have no interest or no understanding of what is being voted on?

[zoidberger]

I got a random text message earlier that said, "the lines are too long... so offices will open on Wednesday for those voting for McCain."

Ahh, that's reassuringly good politics. :D

Variations of these have been going around for months. Democrats will be voting on Wednesdays, or if it's raining the polling stations will remain open. If anyone actually falls for them, they deserve what they get.

haha I agree! I just thought it was funny that I received one for Republicans and that I've never received a spam message on my phone until today.

[Næt.]

McCain's clearly a follower of Satan.

[TheFool]

But why should you have to do that if you genuinely have no interest or no understanding of what is being voted on?

You probably shouldn't. I'm not a huge fan of compulsory voting, but I do like the fact that it encourages participation and politicians don't have to try to persuade people not only to vote for them, but also to vote at all. When everyone's a voter, everyone's interests are covered, not just the political animals'. But yeah, then it becomes lowest common denominator and oversimplification. So basically I have no idea what my opinion is.

Then again, it makes little difference to me because I would always vote anyway if only to keep the worst out.

[KayleeSaeihr]

But why should you have to do that if you genuinely have no interest or no understanding of what is being voted on?

How can it be a true democracy if you can't be assured everyone has had the proper opportunity to submit their opinion?

I can understand the reasons for non-compulsory voting, but looking at the US as an example, I can easily how much of a failure it is... Only 20% (IIRC) of the country even bothers to voting. With compulsory voting everyone has to turn up at the polling venues to get their name marked off the roll. What you do after that it entirely up to you, but most people actually vote (as opposed to simply walking out or submitting a dud ballot). It might seem anti-thesis to "freedom" and democracy, but it works, people vote. And that's what democracy is about, people having their say.

[Eddie7]

How can it be a true democracy if you can't be assured everyone has had the proper opportunity to submit their opinion?

Everyone has the opportunity. Whether or not they choose to exercise that right is up to them.

I can understand the reasons for non-compulsory voting, but looking at the US as an example, I can easily how much of a failure it is... Only 20% (IIRC) of the country even bothers to voting.

Usually around 60% in the US. I'll grant that the UK is pretty bad though as it's usually around 40%.

With compulsory voting everyone has to turn up at the polling venues to get their name marked off the roll. What you do after that it entirely up to you, but most people actually vote (as opposed to simply walking out or submitting a dud ballot). It might seem anti-thesis to "freedom" and democracy, but it works, people vote. And that's what democracy is about, people having their say.

I just don't really see any benefit. Anyone can participate whether it's compulsory or not. Forcing those who have no interest in the process to take part seems counter-productive and gives rise to protest votes as far as I can see.

[Rayne]

Mm i find it amusing that people would choose not to vote (and then usually complain), when there was so much effort to get the vote for everyone in the first place. :(

[KayleeSaeihr]

It doesn't work like that. Who would the protest votes be against exactly? It's not like the current sitting government or the possible future one has any say in the compulsoriness of voting. Part of the Electoral Act (I think...), so it would take another government to draft a new act to override it. And I doubt any ever would.

As a voter..hell as a citizen of this democratic nation I'm pleased that I can be assured that the end result is the say of the whole nation, not just the 20%, 40%, or 60% that could be bothered to turn up on the day. It doesn't seem very democratic to me that the government in power is only in power because only part of the nation said so. I'd prefer that the whole nation had their say, that way you can be assured of a more accurate result, even if some people do do dud votes. Also in Australia because everyone has to vote, legally, there can be no shenanigans like those text messages and other such propaganda.

And because the voting is run but the government department there are not voting machine foul ups or corporation biases.

[Eddie7]

Usually around 60% in the US. I'll grant that the UK is pretty bad though as it's usually around 40%.

Actually I'm wrong. It's around 60% here too. No idea where I pulled the 40% from.

[KayleeSaeihr]

Also with compulsory voting the government and/or other concerned parties don't need to spend millions or billions of dollars on advertising campaigns to try and convince people to actually vote, thereby releasing the money to more important causes.

[Næt.]

Usually around 60% in the US. I'll grant that the UK is pretty bad though as it's usually around 40%.

Actually I'm wrong. It's around 60% here too. No idea where I pulled the 40% from.

Lowest participation in '45 was about 40pc...not surprising considering the zillions of service men scattered around the globe.

[Næt.]

Also with compulsory voting the government and/or other concerned parties don't need to spend millions or billions of dollars on advertising campaigns to try and convince people to actually vote, thereby releasing the money to more important causes.

So...your parties don't canvass :3

[Eddie7]

As a voter..hell as a citizen of this democratic nation I'm pleased that I can be assured that the end result is the say of the whole nation, not just the 20%, 40%, or 60% that could be bothered to turn up on the day. It doesn't seem very democratic to me that the government in power is only in power because only part of the nation said so. I'd prefer that the whole nation had their say, that way you can be assured of a more accurate result, even if some people do do dud votes.

But if we assume that the 60% who vote in the US or the UK are the politically engaged, without sounding too elitist, do we really want the other 40% to vote? If they don't have enough of an opinion to bother casting a vote, why on earth should we force them? Do so and they will likely vote for some random party that they don't really know. The end result, much like your conclusion about voluntary voting, is that you end up with a result that doesn't necessarily represent the population.

And because the voting is run but the government department there are not voting machine foul ups or corporation biases.

I agree with you there, but we manage that fine under our system too. Corporations should never be near elections.

[TheFool]

But if we assume that the 60% who vote in the US or the UK are the politically engaged, without sounding too elitist, do we really want the other 40% to vote? If they don't have enough of an opinion to bother casting a vote, why on earth should we force them? Do so and they will likely vote for some random party that they don't really know. The end result, much like your conclusion about voluntary voting, is that you end up with a result that doesn't necessarily represent the population.

I agree with you there, but we manage that fine under our system too. Corporations should never be near elections.

The idea with compulsory voting is that that 40% is more likely to participate, as they know they have to vote. There is less of an excuse for apathy, but still the opportunity to have no vote if that is what you believe you should do.

[Næt.]

I would not be surprised if the other 40pc voted BNP 'for a laugh'. God knows that's why a hell-load of just-turned-eligible-voters in my Sixth Form did in the by-elections.

Plus, you can be 'political' and not vote [nudges avatar].

AND! What if you don't agree with the voting system? FTPT is a shitty system.

[Eddie7]

In results that should surprise no one:

KENTUCKY (8) - Projected McCain.

VERMONT (3) - Projected Obama.

[Olivier]

But why should you have to do that if you genuinely have no interest or no understanding of what is being voted on?

Democracy?

Plus, it avoids all the shit that's currrently happening in the US. (Registration fraud, voter suppression, etc)

[KayleeSaeihr]

Also with compulsory voting the government and/or other concerned parties don't need to spend millions or billions of dollars on advertising campaigns to try and convince people to actually vote, thereby releasing the money to more important causes.

So...your parties don't canvass :3

I'm not sure what 'to canvas' means. But I think you mean advertise, of sorts. Every party does in their own given their own election budgets, either through the television, mail, newspaper, etc and recently the Internet (see Kevin07 campaign). Each of the "Seat's" (local) prospective parties also maintain a presence outside the poll venues (it's illegal for them to 'canvas' (because I forgot the actual word they use) within the polling venues, highly illegal). No party would be stupid enough to try and convince and/or manipulate voters not to vote (as the text message seemed to suggest).

But as my comment above was about spending money on trying to convince voters to vote, which is unnecessary in Australia. That's an aside to the election budget where parties advertise themselves.

I'm specifically referring to the TV and Internet campaign that has a bunch of actors trying to use reverse psychology.

But if we assume that the 60% who vote in the US or the UK are the politically engaged, without sounding too elitist, do we really want the other 40% to vote? If they don't have enough of an opinion to bother casting a vote, why on earth should we force them? Do so and they will likely vote for some random party that they don't really know. The end result, much like your conclusion about voluntary voting, is that you end up with a result that doesn't necessarily represent the population.

I agree with you there, but we manage that fine under our system too. Corporations should never be near elections.

The idea with compulsory voting is that that 40% is more likely to participate, as they know they have to vote. There is less of an excuse for apathy, but still the opportunity to have no vote if that is what you believe you should do.

Yes exactly.

[KayleeSaeihr]

In results that should surprise no one:

KENTUCKY (8) - Projected McCain.

VERMONT (3) - Projected Obama.

I'm too clueless to be unsurprised :P

[ily]

I vote in a Starbuck's. Really. I'm always suspicious about whether my vote really counts...as Cathy mentioned, we also have to manually connect two parts of an arrow, which seems to be beyond my motor skills.

[Eddie7]

Ricky Gervais just appeared on the BBC News coverage.

I've now switched to Sky News.

[Starscream]

You voted in a Starbucks? Well, I voted in a church, so I wonder what's going to happen with my vote.

[rhyven]

scariness people!

i just got off the phone with a friend in Ohio. He and his wife tried to vote earlier today but were told that the computers showed that they had already voted. Needless to say, they raised sand as did a some other people who were told that they could not vote because their records showed that they had already voted. After the loud complaints, the people were given provisional ballots to be filled out and were told that they could file a complaint in 10 days. WTF??!