Unfortunately both the GOP and Democrats are shells of their former selfs - both pulled to the extremes.
Hopefully that opens up an opportunity for a centrist candidate.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Unfortunately both the GOP and Democrats are shells of their former selfs - both pulled to the extremes.
Hopefully that opens up an opportunity for a centrist candidate.
Less than 25% of eligible voters voted for the current president. That blows my fuking mind. Guess u can look at it two ways
1. Voters are pathetically complacent
2. Theres a vast opportunity for the right candidate
Do you really want that other 75% showing up though? If they can't be bothered to show up, then most of them probably can't make an informed vote. There are enough uninformed voters already that make up the 25% that do vote. I don't want to take away someone's right to vote, but I would prefer only people who are informed cast a vote. Low voter turnout reduces the uninformed vote.
Meh...how informed do you really think the 25% are? Most voters generally care about one issue that's important to them (economy, who loves Jesus most, who is going to keep medicare and SS, who talks the loudest, etc.).
I disagree that there is a correlation between informed voters and voter turnout.
That's crazy. I wonder if you could do that same thing with every other president's supporters?
That's not an example of whataboutism. What 71 said was an example of whataboutism (although he's correct that Obama loonies are just as bad and it wouldn't take much research to prove it).
I'm with that one guy in the 4th video...I will never, ever, ever forgive Obama for not being in the Oval Office during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Freaking Muslim.
Probably not a high percentage of those that vote are informed. Say it's 10% of the registered voters are informed (which is probably being way over generous). If you have 25% of them vote, then that's 40% of the people that voted being informed. If you increase turnout to 50% of the eligible voters, now you're down to 20% of the people that voted being informed. If you decrease turnout to 10%, now all of your voters are informed.
I think it's telling when a particular candidate or party tries to increase voter turnout (without increasing voter education). It's almost as if they're saying "we need more uninformed people voting to help us win".
In all fairness i’ve seen these type videos making libs look bad as well. Lets just agree that the level of partisan stupidity thats out there is quite depressing
I said there were already uninformed voters in the 25%. I couldn't tell you an exact number. My point is we don't want more uninformed people voting. I'm all for more informed people voting. That being said, I'm not saying we should take away anyone's voting rights.
Let's say 500,000 less people turn out to vote. Unless all 500k are informed, then a smaller amount of uninformed will have voted. What are the chances all 500k are informed?
I was talking %'s. Meaning that just because someone isn't voting doesn't make the chances of them being informed or uniformed any different.
And I wouldn't mind exploring voting changes. We'd never do it but I think it would help our country out greatly if you could answer say 3 simple questions about what the candidates actually stand for before you're allowed entry into the voting booth. Logistically, legally, etc. it'd obviously never happen, but I think it'd be a good thing if it could.
This is easily a top 10 dumbest post on ootb. I'll answer anyway. I've stated multiple times that I don't want to take away someone's right to vote. Also, just because someone can't read or write doesn't mean they can't be informed.
I've mentioned on this board before that names and party should be taken off the ballot. There needs to be a list of topics and each candidate can list what his position is on those topics. Each voter selects the position they agree with and whoever has the most selections on the ballot wins the vote. That forces a voter to be at least a little informed.
Only if it we're just social issues. You would have fiscal and foreign policy as well. People tend to be more conservative on those issues. The only thing that would be wiped out is the fringe.
People vote for themselves. Free shit would amok. Especially as the purchasing power of the middle class constricts.
Would also just make it easier to lie about platforms.
If people just wanted free shit without consequences then there would have never been a republican president.
Not sure how it would make it easier, but it definitely would still be just as easy as it is now.
You could. And you could do it with BREXIT supporters and any other type of supporters. Every movement has its lunatic fringe.
A republican has won the popular vote once since 2000. I think your strategy would play well with the populace and garner more votes for the far left. It would make it easier for the disenfranchised to come out and vote. What we have now has worked pretty well. We went from Obama to Trump when no one thought it was possible. This system has a way of working things out.
I typed "dumb Obama supporters" and "dumb Trump supporters" in the YouTube search field... you'd be surprised at the results.
I did manage to find this Kimmel clip where he punks Hillary supporters
Good job by Kimmel for doing this against the libs. It's annoying that late night just craps on one side usually.
If you're a registered voter, you should be allowed to vote regardless.
Although if they couldn't read or write, it'd be pretty tough for them to figure out what all the lines on the paper in front of them said when they got to the booth.
I'd argue it does. If you take the time to get informed on the vote, you're more likely to take the time to express that vote. Someone who spent several hours over the previous couple months researching candidates/issues isn't going to just sit on the couch on election day and say "F it, just can't bring myself to go outside today", whereas someone not invested in the process would be more likely to do that.
Granted, there are extenuating circumstances where an informed person for whatever legitimate reason just can't make it to the polls (work, illness, family issues, etc.).
Completely agree. Would never happen, but the end result would be a much more informed vote (which I'd argue is a good thing, although some may argue that's a bad thing, or at least not something we should actively strive for).
Most people tend to fall in the center. The more likely outcome is a third party candidate wins, not the fringe. We will just have to agree to disagree on this. As far as Trump and Obama go, some people might say those are examples of the system not working.
I didn’t consider the impact of a 3rd party candidate. That could be intriguing.
How would the language work for the questions? How much detail do you apply?
Last edited:
This is my question as well.
Immigrants have to pass a citizenship test to be naturalized. Not only do I think voters should have to be literate, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to them passing a basic civics test as well. That will never happen because the ACLU would have a collective aneurysm.
No I absolutely would not be surprised.
Worth remembering that when Kimmel and Adam Corolla (sp?) hosted "The Man Show" they set up a table on Venice Beach asking people to sign a petition to put an end to women's suffrage. Hilarity ensued.
Similar threads
