Saskwach:

PurpleRain:

Ultrajoe:
2) why are the mascots and elephant and a donkey?
2a) if one of the mascots is indeed a donkey and i'm not just horribly animal blind... why are their so little 'ass' jokes around?

I've never gotten that. At least our mascots make senes. Both are Australian animals and neither can walk backwards. Symbolic and homegrown. Now an Elephant? It's grey like their morals? *boom tish*

Put me in the "doesn't get it" crowd. Honestly, the democrats are all asses, the republicans are Dumbos and no one's picked this comedy goldmine up?

In a country run by people who see themselves as Elephants or Donkeys what do you expect of the populace? Ouch that was cruel.

Ultrajoe:

werepossum:
"Massive post of helpfullness"

6) Not really. I wasn't under the impression that any surviving kangeroos were large enough to be ridden, and assumed they were protected three ways from Sunday by the government. Maybe it's some kind of cartoon or anime giving people that idea?

thanks for that, i read the entire thing, and while still baffled, i'm informed and baffled, and about the section above:

a common misconception, Australia is so full of kangaroos that on a still night, you can feel the earths crust bounce, thats the primary reason we gun them down... That and the fact they are delicious, thats right, we have the worlds only legally edible mascot (as far as i know).

Basically they're giant rabbits and are hunted down with equal aplomb as those smaller invader rodents. It's nice to have a hardy national mascot. We don't have to waste effort protecting it strenuously, as I hear happens for the bald eagle.

I live in England where voting is not mandatory, however if you don't you are lumped in with those who suffer from apathy. I however do not. The labour party who swept in on a wave of public opinion have consistently lied to the populace and proven to be a poodle of American foreign policy. Also they have just abolished the lowest tax bracket to pay for vote winning initiatives for the key voting demographic making it very difficult for the poor to work.

I have had the misfortune of just becoming unemployed and have discovered to my horror that because I have worked for the last five years I am entitled to less money than if I had sat at home watching daytime TV. All politicians are liars who only seek to fund and fuel their own agendas.

The American presidential primary has been continously on our screens for months, we have been more enamoured with the Us than our own parties, this can only serve the people in power as they bury another tax hike or petrol price raise in the Us coverage.

Let us also not forget we have the least popular primeminister in recorded history

I have no answers but would dearly love a none of the above box on the voting card so the disaffected can actually make their feelings clear!

One last thought

Poly meaning many tics are blood sucking insects.

This is my first post sorry to be preachy.

electric discordian:
Poly meaning many tics are blood sucking insects.

That's it. Best line of the year. No contest. Congratulations.

Yeah, its only fair to allow people to choose a null vote.

I myself am an Obama support, even if it gives me a million uncool points amoung cynical internet nerds.

I actualy like being naive.

sammyfreak:
I myself am an Obama support, even if it gives me a million uncool points amoung cynical internet nerds.

I actualy like being naive.

Yes, but what's his position on change? That's what I want to know.

I don't think Obama is any less-liked by cynical internet nerds than the other two still in the race. And at least his supporters can plead naivete.

The election is over, don't worry so much. http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

I partially agree with you. Your logic would be flawless if it was easy to determine which guy has the best politics in mind. When politics are all about the lesser of two evils, however, such reasoning is autodestructive. People who don't care about politics won't care about not going to vote too, if they find a guy that particularly attracts them, even though they'll choose him for the wrong reasons (looks, charisma etc.). People who do, on the other hand, will have doubts about going to vote.
We had elections in my country a couple of weeks ago, and there was a guy that said the same things you're saying: your vote is important, if you're unsure wherether this or that candidate can do the job, don't vote. Some of those that were sensible to politics and could see that the candidates were making promises without really specifying how to keep them decided not to vote. Guess what? The candidate who made the biggest promises and had the most unsubstantial program won. Why is that? Because people that aren't normally interested in politics still went to vote the guy that inspired them by having a bold attitude. None of them thought themeselves to be politically incompetent enough not to vote. And now we're stuck with an idiot again. *sigh*

werepossum:

sammyfreak:
I myself am an Obama support, even if it gives me a million uncool points amoung cynical internet nerds.

I actualy like being naive.

Yes, but what's his position on change? That's what I want to know.

I don't think Obama is any less-liked by cynical internet nerds than the other two still in the race. And at least his supporters can plead naivete.

The presidents role is not having great ideas for the country, he has two main jobs; being ultimately responsible for the actions of the govorment and to lead the country. He also sets the tone of the govorment policies and ideas, but it's really the advisors who make the "change" happen.

Besides, i generally like the policy ideas he and Hilary are suggesting. But only one of them gives me a sense of civic duty.

defcon 1:

smallharmlesskitten:
in my opinion if you don't vote you have no right to complain if the government turns out to be a bunch of people who are pants on head retarded.

I see what you're saying but I look at it a bit differently. If you vote for someone incompetent, then you have no right to complain about him.

If you don't know anything about politics and refrain from voting, then you prevented the system from being poisoned with your ignorance.

those are some of my thoughts.

Nah, if I vote for someone and they cock up, I have every right to complain about him. He (or indeed she) has broken my trust after all.

As for the ignorant being allowed to vote, I can see where you're coming from, but we mustn't forget that in a democracy, everyone can vote. If we start keeping people off the voting register in order to keep the system free from 'poison', we start going down a very difficult road of class elitism.

Now, as for me and my vote. I must admit, I am in something of a dilemma. I see myself as a moderately left-wing, possible even slightly Socialist sort of guy. The next election will be my first opportunity to vote, but unfortunately I cannot think who to vote for. The old Labour party would have been my ideal choice, but this New Labour is a mess of bungled policies, sleaze and general incompetence. I will never vote Tory, simply on principle and the fact that they are every bit as sleazy as Labour. The Liberal Democrats don't seem to have any strong policies on anything. I could vote for a minority party like Green or the Monster Raving Loony Party, but living where I do, that would simply be a wasted vote. If there are any fellow Britons who could help me with this quagmire, I'd be most appreciative.

By the way, if you hadn't already guessed, I'm British.

Thanks, werepossum, for that explanation.

Now, all I have to say is: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE AMERICANS?! What a crazily convoluted system of governance! At least in Australia, we can explain to other people how our system works without writing over nine thousand words.

Canadian here, and I can't say I agree with the logic of not voting only because none of your choices are terribly good ones. A benefit created by something usually seen as an irritance is the fact that any candidate must support at least some of a party's policies. As a result, you get some idea of what a candidate has in mind for their term even if they themselves are totally mum on the subject like Obama. I know some people who allow party lines to fully dictate their vote, and for a while I was tempted to do that as well. For those who don't know, our 'counterparts' to the American Republican and Democrat parties are Conservative and Liberal respectively, with a very environmentally-focused party called NDP (New Democratic Party) always making the best showing of all the splinter parties but almost never enough to beat the Tories or Liberals, possibly due to the suspicion a lot of adults seem to treat Jack Layton with. Must be frusturating to be them- a lot of folks probably don't vote for them because they know they have no chance of victory (hence a 'wasted vote').

Back on topic: the only reason I can see for ever not voting is apathy that it doesn't have any effect on who wins: as we've seen demonstrated recently, there are lots of ways to win even if a large majority of the population hates you. One vote is a tiny drop in a vast ocean, but it's not like it costs you anything but the time out of your day. You're paying for the right no matter what through taxes- you may as well use it.

On the subject of 'towing party lines', what I've seen regarding the USA Democratic parties on this thread just confirmed what I already thought- if I were a US citizen, I'd go with whichever major Democratic candiate I liked better, because even if they're uncertain as to how they're going to handle it (and really, does anyone at all have a foolproof way of ending your/our recession besides ending the massive cash drain of Iraq and 'Star Wars'?) they have party values to fall back on when they don't know what do to, most of which I totally agree with.

ok, let me get this straight. You think that because the system is all cocked up, we should all ignore the system and hope that it just goes away? Newsflash, when has ignoring the problem ever made it go away?

If you really want to make a difference:
- start spamming the various political figures of your choice with all the things that you want done.

- If they acquiesce to you endless nagging, vote for them and keep up with the spam

- If they don't, start on another politician, and poke them incessantly, etc, etc.

Fenixius:
Thanks, werepossum, for that explanation.

Now, all I have to say is: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE AMERICANS?! What a crazily convoluted system of governance! At least in Australia, we can explain to other people how our system works without writing over nine thousand words.

Well... That's actually how it is SUPPOSED to work. How it ACTUALLY works, now, that'd take some time. :D

WhiteFang, I don't know about Canada, but as I believe I've said the USA isn't in a recession. It's quite popular to say we are, if only as an excuse to get those evil Republicans out of office. Nonetheless, words mean things. A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth; so far we haven't had one recently (not since 9/11.)
EDIT: Corrected country.

"Doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in". So said grafitti on a wall, somewhere, sometime.
If the U.S. Republicans are really God's Own Party, why don't they win every time? Surely that breaches Trades Descriptions.

Back on topic: the only reason I can see for ever not voting is apathy that it doesn't have any effect on who wins

But what if you do not have a single clue what is going on? Is that not a reason for not voting?

there's a lot of things wrong with not having a say. you are the president's boss. he is accountable to YOU and you alone. you are the people. You have to make the call to decide whether he's worthy or not. YES it's hard to make that choice, YES there's a lot of information out there that requires you to actually think and make a decision based on the issues, but there's a lot of hard work that comes from being the boss.

There's a lot of people who won't DO all this hard work. Many people won't even read an hour of serious news each day, can you imagine any boss doing that little work? Now if someone has not done their work (reading about politics) do you think they are fit to be bosses? Potentially making decisions which impact the lifes of tens of millions of people? I think not.

in the end not voting is just irresponsible.

I daresay voting without knowing what you are voting for is more so.

If you want to know the basics, watch TV. If you want to know more, than most of the information can be found on the official websites, the debates, and a range of other sources. Not saying this isn't in the US, but, I find it's quite easy to find out what each party stands for, and the details, if you want, In Australia, so compulsory voting isn't a problem here.

What I am saying is that those who won't read this information should not be encouraged to vote. Now, you WILL need to do some work in order to find out what a partys stated policies are. Then you will have to evaluate what this means in practice (E. g. all parties usually state that they are in favour of a "just country" or some equally meaningless cliche, it varies from country to country.) Then you have to do a lot of work in order to find out what the parties *actual* policies are (this is hard). Then you will have to evaluate whether those policies are smart or not. And in order to find out whether a politician fullfills his promises or not you will need to do all of the work mentioned above - only you'll have to look back ten years to see how it was back then in order to make an informed choice.

All in all it's horribly hard work. Not everyone (or even a majority of the population I think) does all this. Those people have a right to vote, but should not be encouraged - if you wish good policies to be enacted that is.

So, our votes matter, but don't vote? Even if we truly understand the politics?

I don't know who said this. I asked people not to vote in a hope that those politically illiterate would heed my request, but those who knew enough to take an informed decision would ignore it. I am trying to remove those politically illiterate from the voting pool.

Of course, there are plenty of people unable to take an informed decision who feels strongly one way or another anyways, and will vote anyways. Judging from your claim that

I'm voting. And I'm voting McCain. No racial offense, but Obama turns his back to our flag, will not say the pledge of alliegence, and will not say he loves America.

You seem to be among them. Hopefully, if fewer people like you voted politics would be more about actual policies and less about image and personality.

And yet you want me to not vote? Because there is a 1:100,000,000,000 chance that my vote will actually make a difference? You know what, if my vote is the winning vote for McCain, that makes a huge difference, and I'm more than willing to take that chance.....Clown.

Clearly you did not understand my post, and inserted fragments of your own imagination into the places you did not understand. I did not argue that you should not vote because the chance for winning is so small (although that is definitely an interesting argument), I argued that you should not vote because good policies are most likely to be enacted through informed voters.

I don't believe that a single candidate in the 2008 race has intentions of implementing what the TC refers to as "GOOD policies[...]So I don't really consider the candidates to have "GOOD policies," and the charisma just isn't there for me. Seeing nothing attractive in the political arena, I will not participate in it this year

Agreed. In America this election will be about least horrible.
In Russia they have the option to vote "against all". A Russian on the net called this "the only thing we did right". I think every person not voting in a nation should be considered to be voting "against all" and if enough people are voting against all no president will be elected. This would be for political systems in which the president is elected though.

Don't be a retard. Go do your civic duty. You do not need to know everything there is to know to, just be logical. For instance does the increasing link between religion and elected government officials bother you? Whatever you pick just vote, don't go unaccounted for because groups of organised voters may not be voting with YOUR best interests at heart. If you're old enough to vote then you are old enough to realise that not everyone has the same intentions as you, and in this system it is up to you to counter-balance them.

H0ncho:

In Russia they have the option to vote "against all". A Russian on the net called this "the only thing we did right". I think every person not voting in a nation should be considered to be voting "against all" and if enough people are voting against all no president will be elected. This would be for political systems in which the president is elected though.

And then we would be without any leader, or would have Cheney as the president. I see electing one of the candidates as the lesser of two evils.

Umm.... Werepossum for president?

Saskwach:

PurpleRain:

Ultrajoe:
2) why are the mascots and elephant and a donkey?
2a) if one of the mascots is indeed a donkey and i'm not just horribly animal blind... why are their so little 'ass' jokes around?

I've never gotten that. At least our mascots make senes. Both are Australian animals and neither can walk backwards. Symbolic and homegrown. Now an Elephant? It's grey like their morals? *boom tish*

Put me in the "doesn't get it" crowd. Honestly, the democrats are all asses, the republicans are Dumbos and no one's picked this comedy goldmine up?

It goes back to the early 19th century (the 1828 election). Jackson had been labeled a "jackass" during the mudslinging (it happened even back then). A political cartoon was published which showed Jackson riding on a donkey (which symbolized the Democratic Party). Later, in 1870, Thomas Nast (one of the more famous political cartoonists in history) revived the symbol, and it stuck. He was also the one to introduce the symbol of the Elephant. So, blame Nast, I guess

@Easykill

YES! Werepossum for President!

Well, that would certainly unite the two parties anyway.

And then we would be without any leader, or would have Cheney as the president. I see electing one of the candidates as the lesser of two evils.

No leader would be great. Power to the people :].
Seriously though American presidents throghout modern history have been tremendously destructive.

Don't be a retard. Go do your civic duty. You do not need to know everything there is to know to, just be logical. For instance does the increasing link between religion and elected government officials bother you? Whatever you pick just vote, don't go unaccounted for

Heh. I though my criticism was slightly strawman-ish, and here comes a guy who argues excactly what the OP is arguing against.
The democratic system is there so that poor leaders and poor policies can be removed. This requires the population to consistently vote for the people *not* enacting poor policies.
Therefore, don't "just vote". If everybody "just voted" without any considerations at all the entire system of feedback and removing the bad politicians would be even worse than it is today.(Considerations by politically illiterate counts as no consideration, since they are made without sufficient knowledge to make the consideration relevant...
Did I use the word "consideration" correctly now?)

because groups of organised voters may not be voting with YOUR best interests at heart.

If you don't know sh*t about what you're voting for *you* will be voting against *your own* best interest as well.

Fire Daemon:

Saskwach:

PurpleRain:

Ultrajoe:
2) why are the mascots and elephant and a donkey?
2a) if one of the mascots is indeed a donkey and i'm not just horribly animal blind... why are their so little 'ass' jokes around?

I've never gotten that. At least our mascots make senes. Both are Australian animals and neither can walk backwards. Symbolic and homegrown. Now an Elephant? It's grey like their morals? *boom tish*

Put me in the "doesn't get it" crowd. Honestly, the democrats are all asses, the republicans are Dumbos and no one's picked this comedy goldmine up?

In a country run by people who see themselves as Elephants or Donkeys what do you expect of the populace? Ouch that was cruel.

You're a century late for those jokes. Our grandfathers made them all already.

I would like to ask what people hope to gain from NOT voting. That does not make any sense to me. Not voting is in many ways the same thing as not speaking up. It does suggest that you don't care which way the country is headed. If that's not true, what do you think will happen if somehow you can't convince people to stay home?

H0ncho:

in the end not voting is just irresponsible.

I daresay voting without knowing what you are voting for is more so.

Hence the situation we're in now.

Fenixius:
Thanks, werepossum, for that explanation.

Now, all I have to say is: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE AMERICANS?! What a crazily convoluted system of governance! At least in Australia, we can explain to other people how our system works without writing over nine thousand words.

Ours may be simpler, I don't know, but I know something it fails to do is separation of powers. The executive is right in the lower house telling his party what to vote for. That isn't too optimal.

I would like to ask what people hope to gain from NOT voting.

I am hoping to remove the uninformed people from the voting pool.

Not voting is in many ways the same thing as not speaking up.

Precisely.
I thought the concensus on this forum was that it was so good(relative to other gaming forums) because all the console vs PC people and all the "first!"(on the yahtzee videos) people won't participate... Because some people won't add anything to the discussion.

Again, this does not mean that non-voters are bad people. There is nothing wrong with understanding ones limitations; everyone can't be political scientists.

I think I can see the problem H0ncho. You believe it is best that only people capable of making an informed decision should vote. I can see where you're coming from with this. After all, in theory, if it was only the intelligent people who voted, and did so after careful thought and consideration, politics would arguably be a better business overall.

The problem I have is that to create voter exclusivity is to undermine the voting process itself. We of the West pride ourselves on our democratic systems. The entire point is that everyone, no matter how poor or uneducated they are, can have a say in how their country is run. If you start screening out people who are deemed too 'uninformed to vote', you may as well do with the democratic principles altogether.

The real challenge is to get people interested and engaged in politics again. People need to be made aware of how government works, and how important it is that they have their say. The best way I can think of to do this is to bring in some kind of education about how the government works into schools. Not necessarily a lesson every week, more something like Sex Education, where you get a couple of lessons maybe every year or two. Enough education, basically, so that people are engaged and interested, and most importantly, that they think carefully about who they vote for. I think that, in the long run, would be a far more productive way to improve the current electoral systems.

I saw an article like this thread on Slashdot a couple of months ago, and the advice there seemed pretty sound to me. If you're politically conscious enough to recognise that an uninformed vote can be counter-productive, you're politically conscious enough to inform yourself. If you feel the entire system is bad, then become a political activist. I guarantee that things don't get better on their own.

EDIT: Wow, that took 19 minutes to write? Anyway, I agree completely with j-e-f-f-e-r-s. Politics is completely ignored in school (I'm Canadian), and introducing kids to it as they grow up would probably help a whole lot.

@Honcho:

How is it politically ignorant to vote for someone who shows support for his country rather than soneone who shows NO support for his country?
From what that would tell me is that Obama has no workable policies and that if he got in it would ruin America financially and globally.
I don't pretened to know who stands for what, but McCain is showing he is not only interested in leading the country, but that he actually cares. Why the hell shouldn't I vote for him? A leader who doesn't support his followers is likely to ruin them.
It's an iformed opinion. Just because you don't agree wih it does not make me ignorant.

At every turn, all I can see is Obama showing his is not qualified to run the country on our behalf, and is definitely not even interested in our welfare. If he won't say the pledge of alliegence or even acknowledge our flag, how am I to expect him to care about the well being of Americans as a whole? All he has been able to show me is that he's runing under the premise that anyone can do the job "better than Bush" and he's running on that.
I refuse to vote for someone who won't care for me, and that's practically his entire motif.
So how does that make me one of those "Politically Ignorant" then? Because I'm informed and pay scrutnizing attention to who's running?

And fuck, how the hell do you expect to remove the uninformed from voting by doing it on a gaming site, furthermore populated mostly by those not even in America?

I tend to agree with j-e-f-f-e-r-s. Even the least-informed can form positions, at least as basic as "I want the government to take as little of the money I earn as possible; each person is entitled to the fruits of his own labors, and the government should take only a portion for essential public services" or "I want the government to take money earned by others and give it to me; a disparity in wealth hurts a society and is unfair." Certainly you can argue such simplistic concepts don't make for the best results for the country as a whole, but any group in control of who is eligible for voting will make that determination based on their own self-interests. And don't forget that highly educated, knowledgeable people argue those same two simplistic concepts every day in politics. Even if the prospective voter holds such simplistic political views as those I mentioned, we still don't have determination of which theory is correct. I could easily make a cogent argument for either.

There were reasons originally to limit voting to rich white landowners, and you can argue they did an excellent job for the most part for the country as a whole - but they ran the country for the benefit of rich white landowners. If you were a poor black sharecropper (or slave) during the same period of time, I'm guessing you'd prefer a say in how the country is governed to a larger increase in GDP. Past the first generation, a group in power will always govern in its own perceived best interests. Similarly, I believe that any attempt to limit the number of people enfranchised will always be twisted to the benefit of those in charge.

(Sorry for the spelling, I'm typing on my new computer and I don't yet have anything with spell-check loaded.)