[yuezhi]

Well actually more like

• vote red
• vote blue
• vote 3rd party
• not vote

is what I was thinking

[Mikes]

Well actually more like

• vote red
• vote blue
• vote 3rd party
• not vote

is what I was thinking

4. Refuse (to Vote) ? LOL

... and don't duck out of "Synthesis" by simply making to option about voting for someone else (which is basically the same as refusing to vote - the way the US political landscape is set up currently lol.)

[An4ximandros]

Well actually more like

• vote red
• vote blue
• vote 3rd party
• not vote

is what I was thinking

SO BE IT! The voting continues...

[yuezhi]

well i figure voting a 3rd party like the commies will unite everyone by destroying the other parties.

[Aardwolf]

How's that supposed to make sense?

[Sarafan]

A small question, why isnt voting mandatory in the US?

[NGTM-1R]

A small question, why isnt voting mandatory in the US?

It's not mandatory anywhere your vote actually matters.

[Aardwolf]

Australia just as bad, huh?

[NGTM-1R]

Australia just as bad, huh?

Considering some of the stuff they've passed...

But really, making it mandatory doesn't accomplish anything besides demanding the disinterested or disaffected vote. That in turn is just artificially inflating the signal-to-noise any election.

And making it mandatory implies you'll punish them for not voting. Which rapidly veers bad places. If you say it's mandatory but there's no significant punishment, that's not really mandatory.

[An4ximandros]

Isn't not voting in the US, even if for a party that stands no chance (which it would have if you voted ), an insult to the founding fathers of the country?

After all they became terrorists under the British Empire to fight for your right to vote...

[General Battuta]

It's a sorta open question as to whether voters lead or follow, but right now signs point to follow. Making voting mandatory would just make parties more powerful.

[haloboy100]

I vote for the apathy party.

[NGTM-1R]

Isn't not voting in the US, even if for a party that stands no chance (which it would have if you voted ), an insult to the founding fathers of the country?

Deliberately not voting is, in itself, a political statement. We call it a boycott.

[Alex Heartnet]

Isn't not voting in the US, even if for a party that stands no chance (which it would have if you voted ), an insult to the founding fathers of the country?

After all they became terrorists under the British Empire to fight for your right to vote...

The current presidential election system isn't the original election system that was created by our Founding Fathers back in the day.

We used to have an indirect vote in the form of an Electoral College, but nowadays the Electorial College is irrelevant and people get manipulated by vote for candidates directly.

[Aardwolf]

No we don't. We vote for electors, and the electors have pledged that they will vote for a particular candidate. Idunno how it works in the two states that split their electoral votes.

But the electoral college still exists, and is just as stupid as ever.

[Alex Heartnet]

No we don't. We vote for electors, and the electors have pledged that they will vote for a particular candidate. Idunno how it works in the two states that split their electoral votes.

Do show me a ballot where you vote for electors rather then the candidates themselves, then.  Apparently my perception of people checking either 'Obama' or 'Romney' in a ballot box is way off.

But the electoral college still exists, and is just as stupid as ever.

It made more sense back in the days before modern communication.  Without television or radio, your average citizen didn't have any knowledge of the presidential candidates.

[General Battuta]

Average citizens still don't, there is some pretty depressing research on this.

[redsniper]

..................

WE STILL HAVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND WE DON'T HAVE A DIRECT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

Your vote for Obama or Romney decides how your electoral district votes. The elector for that district is supposed to vote for whoever the majority of voters in that district selected on their ballot, but they don't have to. This way, if 100% of people vote for one candidate, or if 50%+1 vote one candidate, that candidate is still getting the electoral vote! So now that 50%-1 who voted for the other guy don't count. So yeah, you vote for the president on your ballot, but it's not like all the ballots are going into one big pool and deciding who wins.

EDIT: Oh and being an elector is also an elected position IIRC, but I don't remember if the people vote for them or members of government or what. So that's supposed to be a check on them not voting with the people of their electoral district. They don't get reelected if they ignore the will of their constituents or something.

[Alex Heartnet]

An indirect voting system would be citizens checking 'elector A' or 'elector B' on their ballot box.

No, what we have currently is a direct voting system.  It may be a bit in between, but it is still much more of a direct system then an indirect system.

EDIT: Oh and being an elector is also an elected position IIRC, but I don't remember if the people vote for them or members of government or what. So that's supposed to be a check on them not voting with the people of their electoral district. They don't get reelected if they ignore the will of their constituents or something.

Or it might just be that electors are practically chosen nowadays rather then elected.  After all, they have to get into office somehow, and not many people seem to care enough about electoral candidates to vote for one.  (Those that do care are probably individuals that are already part of the political system)

Can't be bothered to research it myself though.

[Sarafan]

It's not mandatory anywhere your vote actually matters.

Huh uh, sure.

But really, making it mandatory doesn't accomplish anything besides demanding the disinterested or disaffected vote. That in turn is just artificially inflating the signal-to-noise any election.

And making it mandatory implies you'll punish them for not voting. Which rapidly veers bad places. If you say it's mandatory but there's no significant punishment, that's not really mandatory.

Voting is mandatory in Brazil for every adult from 18 to 70 years, we had elections for mayor today and voting was pretty smooth, as for punishment its nothing major, the punishment is simply paying a fine after the first election you missed, then you get other restrictions if you miss two others (cant take a passport, public job, etc).