Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi I am doing this for an extended homework task and would like your honest opinions and no stupid answers. -18s only.
1 . Will You vote when you are 18?
2 . Do you do any voting in classes at school or something like that? Please state what, where and when.
3 . What are your views on voting?
Thankyou for participating.

1. Of course. I want to take part in the democratic process and I get fined if I don't.

2. No, we never had 'class presidents' or anything like that here.

3. It's an opportunity for a nation's people to decide who best to lead them. Unfortunately, there are far too many dogmatic or naive voters (IMO).

1. No. With the Electoral College in the US, your vote is near meaningless, and generally when choosing a candidate here, it's really just choosing the lesser of two evils. I prefer not to have anything to do with either.

2. No. School elections are just a popularity contest. Whoever has the most friends wins.

3. It's as stated before an opportunity to choose your leaders, but unfortunately, there is hardly ever a candidate worth voting for.

1. Yes. Though I believe the Electoral College cripples the true meaning behind the Democratic vote, I wish to support any candidate that I think is "Good enough" for my vote.

2. Never. My schools never bothered with those pissing contests.

3. I think it's a good idea, just that the Electoral College here in the States is the most pants-on-head [Mod Edit - Let's avoid that, OK?] slowed election-deciding method I've seen. And I believe that the Collegiate can actually vote for any candidate, not the one the state chose, but they are fined. The vote is still counted I believe.

Haddi wrote:
3. I think it's a good idea, just that the Electoral College here in the States is the most pants-on-head slowed election-deciding method I've seen. And I believe that the Collegiate can actually vote for any candidate, not the one the state chose, but they are fined. The vote is still counted I believe.

That is correct. They are fined but the vote still stands.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Haddi wrote:
3. I think it's a good idea, just that the Electoral College here in the States is the most pants-on-head slowed election-deciding method I've seen. And I believe that the Collegiate can actually vote for any candidate, not the one the state chose, but they are fined. The vote is still counted I believe.

That is correct. They are fined but the vote still stands.

Auuugh.

See, this is why America can't have nice things.

Haddi wrote:
See, this is why America can't have nice things.

That and a low level of political effacacy among young people.

Ahtman wrote:

Haddi wrote:
See, this is why America can't have nice things.

That and a low level of political effacacy among young people.

All I need to know is I vote for whoever the Dems trot out that electoral period, and I can feel good about myself.

Politics=Fail.

I refuse to vote in presidential elections, since as user stated before, votes are meaningless because of the electoral college.
I will prolly vote for positions like mayors or congress. But otherwise, no.

Haddi wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Haddi wrote:
See, this is why America can't have nice things.

That and a low level of political effacacy among young people.

All I need to know is I vote for whoever the Dems trot out that electoral period, and I can feel good about myself.

Drone much?


Quick question: Were we established as a Democracy or a Republic?

Stormrider wrote:

Haddi wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Haddi wrote:
See, this is why America can't have nice things.

That and a low level of political effacacy among young people.

All I need to know is I vote for whoever the Dems trot out that electoral period, and I can feel good about myself.

Drone much?


Quick question: Were we established as a Democracy or a Republic?

This.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and...Ageist topic!!!

The US is a republic not a democracy...Dont they teach anything in school these days?

Wait when did kids get the right to vote?

Remember, as the immortal Bard once said: Never trust anyone under 30.

Catyrpelius wrote:The US is a republic not a democracy...Dont they teach anything in school these days?

Moving beyond that there is also the issue of people not liking politics but refusing to participate to change it. Don't like the Electoral College? What are you doing to change it?

Stormrider wrote:
Quick question: Were we established as a Democracy or a Republic?

Followup: democracy and republic are mutually exclusive, yes or no?

I believe the American colonies were first established under the auspices of the British Crown, making them part of a Constitutional Monarchy.

I suppose it depends how far back you want go.



DISCLAIMER: I am kidding around. I'm looking at YOU, Ahtman!

Ahtman wrote:

Catyrpelius wrote:The US is a republic not a democracy...Dont they teach anything in school these days?

Moving beyond that there is also the issue of people not liking politics but refusing to participate to change it. Don't like the Electoral College? What are you doing to change it?

you're funny. nobody can do anything about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
besides, it's more than just the electoral college. Whatever candidate people/companies/organizations (with the most money) are going to benefit the most from, will be elected.

Do you realize that you just explained the natural implication of a democracy?

When the franchise is extended to the populace, the candidate who can best curry the favor of the populace will win; that's what's supposed to happen.

So you can call it a democracy, that makes it alright then?

1.)I will vote , whether or not it is spoiled is a different matter

2.)the only time I voted at school was to elect the auditor and other figureheads of the debating society by a secret ballot at the end of the school year

3.) PR (Proportional Representation) is the best method of tallying votes as it quickly weeds out the useless one made by the uneducated and puts the unused votes to help others who deserve to be in the Dáil (Irish parliament) and that it should be optional as those who do not care/have a political opinion will waste time and money by spoiling their votes

whatwhat wrote:So you can call it a democracy, that makes it alright then?

I didn't mention rightness at all.

IG_urban wrote:nobody can do anything about it.

Your low level of political savvy and lack of action ensures that. You are part of the problem you are railing against. To put it another way, decisions are made by those who show up. If you choose to not show up, you don't have a lot of room to complain that things aren't the way you'd like them.

IG_urban wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
besides, it's more than just the electoral college. Whatever candidate people/companies/organizations (with the most money) are going to benefit the most from, will be elected.

Again, low level of political efficacy.

dogma wrote:Do you realize that you just explained the natural implication of a democracy?

When the franchise is extended to the populace, the candidate who can best curry the favor of the populace will win; that's what's supposed to happen.

You misunderstand me. I mean that it has nothing to do with a vote. At all.

Ahtman wrote:

IG_urban wrote:nobody can do anything about it.

Your low level of political savvy and lack of action ensures that. You are part of the problem you are railing against. To put it another way, decisions are made by those who show up. If you choose to not show up, you don't have a lot of room to complain that things aren't the way you'd like them.

IG_urban wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
besides, it's more than just the electoral college. Whatever candidate people/companies/organizations (with the most money) are going to benefit the most from, will be elected.

Again, low level of political efficacy.

I'm from Seattle, when I was much younger, when we had the King Dome, before Qwest Field and Safeco Stadium, Seattle invested something upwards of 1.5 million to repair the roof of the King Dome, a few years later, they wanted to build a new stadium. The people of Seattle voted it down...twice. Guess what happened? They blew up the King Dome and built Safeco Stadium anyway...

I don't claim to be a political analyst, and I certainly don't give a baker's last feth about politics. But I do read trend forcasters and trend reports about pretty much everything. With almost every election, there has been some event in which the deciding actions benefit certain...facets of our economy. Sometimes there are multiple events. One candidate would have done one thing, while the chosen candidate chooses the beneficial option. Then, if and when things go sour, they can blame everything on their chosen candidate, turn him into a pariah, and cast him out.

I don't vote because I don't believe in supporting a broken system. I don't complain or blame anything on one person, and I choose to just finish my schooling and get a job doing what I like, if the economy forbids that, then I guess it won't happen. Our society is far beyond a time of protesting and demonstrations getting you anywhere. People protest anything and everything now, and young kids do it to be cool, it has become like a car alarm, nobody gives a gak anymore. Not caring about politics keeps my blood pressure and anxiety levels down. Watching Liberals and Conservatives debate makes me feel a funeral in my brain. Discussing in-depth politics is worse than watching somebody raiding in WoW for 40 hours, and both sides of the debate are always getting personal, and both sides have good points and gak points.

IG_urban wrote:
You misunderstand me. I mean that it has nothing to do with a vote. At all.

Really? Because there is a multimillion dollar industry built on determining who is likely to vote, and how they might vote.

The fact that people are influenced by different forces does not indicate that votes are meaningless. You seem to have somehow blended naivete and cynicism.

Ahtman wrote:Your low level of political savvy and lack of action ensures that. You are part of the problem you are railing against. To put it another way, decisions are made by those who show up. If you choose to not show up, you don't have a lot of room to complain that things aren't the way you'd like them.

This a thousand times over. Do you know how many times I've heard someone complain about <insert candidate/politician/policy> followed by the phrase "That's why I don't vote" 2008 was the first time I ever voted in an election. My only complaint was that the line took three hours for a fifteen minute process

As to my opinion on voting, say what you want about Mel Gibson but this was just brilliant: "Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away." Welcome to politics. The never ending crap shoot

Often times local elections (up to US Congress) are decided by only a few hundred votes.

I can understand refusing to vote in the Presidential election, as often times the ballot is quite restrictive. For example, I didn't vote for the President in '04 as both candidates were terrible, and my ballot did not contain any alternatives. But to refuse to vote at all? That's just lazy nonsense.

IG_urban wrote:I'm from Seattle, when I was much younger, when we had the King Dome, before Qwest Field and Safeco Stadium, Seattle invested something upwards of 1.5 million to repair the roof of the King Dome, a few years later, they wanted to build a new stadium. The people of Seattle voted it down...twice. Guess what happened? They blew up the King Dome and built Safeco Stadium anyway...

Part of politics is that you won't always get what you want. The people who wanted a new stadium got what they wanted and the people who were on the losing end of that vote you mentioned got what they wanted. Understanding how the process works beyond thinking that all things are determined by a public vote is a step in the right direction.

dogma wrote:

IG_urban wrote:
You misunderstand me. I mean that it has nothing to do with a vote. At all.

Really? Because there is a multimillion dollar industry built on determining who is likely to vote, and how they might vote.

The fact that people are influenced by different forces does not indicate that votes are meaningless. You seem to have somehow blended naivete and cynicism.

Yes there is. But that is still not what I am talking about.

LordofHats wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Your low level of political savvy and lack of action ensures that. You are part of the problem you are railing against. To put it another way, decisions are made by those who show up. If you choose to not show up, you don't have a lot of room to complain that things aren't the way you'd like them.

This a thousand times over. Do you know how many times I've heard someone complain about <insert candidate/politician/policy> followed by the phrase "That's why I don't vote" :facepalm

IG_urban wrote:I don't vote because I don't believe in supporting a broken system. I don't complain or blame anything on one person

Ahtman wrote:

IG_urban wrote:I'm from Seattle, when I was much younger, when we had the King Dome, before Qwest Field and Safeco Stadium, Seattle invested something upwards of 1.5 million to repair the roof of the King Dome, a few years later, they wanted to build a new stadium. The people of Seattle voted it down...twice. Guess what happened? They blew up the King Dome and built Safeco Stadium anyway...

Part of politics is that you won't always get what you want. The people who wanted a new stadium got what they wanted and the people who were on the losing end of that vote you mentioned got what they wanted. Understanding how the process works beyond thinking that all things are determined by a public vote is a step in the right direction.

Don't assume and project my understandings and beliefs, please. I understand quite well how the system works. I think that if something is voted down twice, it should not be done. I understand how politics work, but that in NO WAY makes it OK, or the right thing, or a good system.

dogma wrote:I can understand refusing to vote in the Presidential election, as often times the ballot is quite restrictive. For example, I didn't vote for the President in '04 as both candidates were terrible, and my ballot did not contain any alternatives. But to refuse to vote at all? That's just lazy nonsense.

I have had this debate with unbudging liberals and conservatives before. Voting is not a full and honest choice. Do I want a cheese grater taken to my elbow? Or a table saw to my thigh? I choose neither, which in it of itself, is a choice. You can disagree, but that is a fact.

IG_urban wrote:Don't assume and project my understandings and beliefs, please.

I'm not really assuming anything. I'm going by what you say. If you are muddled in getting your point across don't get upset with me.

IG_urban wrote:I understand quite well how the system works.

You say that, but everything you have said up to this point says the opposite. You tell us how you would like it to work, but that is not the same thing as actually understanding how it works and how to work it. Start getting involved in a meaningful way and you'll understand the difference as well.