Hot Election Deal

[MagisterLudi]

Here's a hot deal, VOTE!!

Before you cry to a mod to lock this thread, consider this...

With only 30-40% of eligible voters turning out to vote, that means your vote counts not only for yourself, but for as many as two other people besides.

How often do you get an opportunity for such excess representation?

Only in America could such a hot deal exist.

 

[Sesopedalian]

If they REALLY wanted us to vote, they would give us more choices.

 

[pen^2]

if there were a 'negative' vote i would consider it a hot deal

 

[cjchaps]

So MagisterLudi, you are saying that if I vote it's like I am voting for as many as two other people. I don't want to take away from other peoples votes, so I guess I won't vote at all. I would feel bad using up other peoples votes without their permission

 

[lepper boy]

mail in ballot! the only ballot for me!!!!!!!!

 

[ctaktak]

Some people don't want to take enough responsibility to vote for who they think is the better man, but they will be the first person to complain about the status of our nation, but in contrast I would rather see someone not vote than vote and hove no idea of who or what they are voting for.

 

[SuperRob]

Here's why voting ISN'T such a "hot deal" ...

Article at Discover

 

[boolerboy]

just get out there and vote! that's the only way our democracy and our bill of rights will survive. doesn't matter who you vote for, just vote.

 

[Wangel]

Many people believe that the elections are "FIXED" just like professional football, boxing and other high dollar sports. Anything with lots of money involved, you can sure bet will have someone trying to fix it.

 

[TheBigZ]

If you have any concerns about where the internet is heading... online privacy in particular, you want to reconsider skipping this election. The President we elect this time will likely be charged with appointing 2 to 4 new Supreme Court judges during their term. It is also likely that such issues as "online privacy", "cloning", "organ farming" and other hi-tech issues will be reaching the high court in the next 10 years or so. For may folks, that's the REAL issue of this election... which guy is most likely to appoint judges that will rule on tech issues the way YOU think they should.

And besides that, if you don't vote, you really don't have any credability when you complain. So vote! And if you're still undecided, email me... I'll GLADLY tell you who to vote for!

 

[Audiofight]

I would vote, if I felt the candidates gave a flying F@*& about me. I haven't heard either of them address the younger (18-25) crowd at all. They only care about pleasing our parents and the elderly. I admit, you can't please em all, but why ignore a potentially very powerful age group? They haven't just succeeded in turning away my vote for this election, but have deterred me from wanting to vote period.

It isn't like they haven't had the chance to address us. Look at the WWF for example, they took it upon themselves to help register people to vote. They managed to register over 120,000 new voters. All they asked in return was for a debate that would help the candidates to address my age group. I was disappointed to see both candidates turn down their offer for air time on one of the most watched cable television programs today.

Screw the system, it has me for quite some time.

 

[fdiskboy]

Actually audiofight,

They have addressed the younger crowd, perhaps not as specifically.

Here's how. One candidate wants to allow you to invest part of the money that normally goes into the Social Security system (and which earns a paltry 2%). You would own this money, it could be passes on to your heirs, something Social Security does not allow no matter how much money you paid into the system.

The other candidate just wants to stick with the status quo.

If you understand the power of compound interest, you should have no problem seeing a huge incentive for the younger crowd to vote for the right candidate. (I'm only 28, so I'm not too old to consider this important). Let me put it another way, a single mother earning $33,000 a year, using this opportunity could end up with a nest egg of over $1.2 million just from this part of Social Security she's given ownership of. That doesn't even take into account the other sources of retirement income she might have.

Powerful stuff.

 

[Rorschach]

Looks like you're a Bush fan FdiskBoy.

If any of you have watched the debates you realize that both major candidates are total morons. I don't want either of them in charge of anything. I realize one will win, but I won't be part of it.

So your real duty is to vote third party, because I know most of you think Bore and Gush are an insult to our intelligence like I do. I don't care who you vote for as long as it's not one of them.

Think it's a wasted vote? It was always be until people start casting it.

 

[cpebbles]

Why don't the candidates focus on younger people? Maybe because they get the idea that younger people don't vote. Where on earth would they have gotten that crazy idea?

Oh yeah, from people like us.

cpebbles

 

[Audiofight]

I admit, I wasn't aware of the Social Security plan offered by Bush, fdiskboy. you do learn something new everyday.

Unfortunately, I strongly agree with Rorschach. I think both candidates are morons. Look at Rage Against the Machines music video, "Testify", portraying them. They express my feelings pretty well, both candidates say the same thing most of the time. They both bore me to death, so I can't stand wasting my time watching the debates they stage.

It is a vicious cycle, young people aren't addressed because they don't vote and I (a young person) will not vote because I feel I am ignored.


Oh well, what can I do?

 

[moocat]

"I would vote, if I felt the candidates gave a flying F@*& about me. I haven't heard either of them address the younger (18-25) crowd at all. They only care about pleasing our parents and the elderly."


The reason the candidates cater to parents and the elderly is because THEY VOTE (senior citizens traditionally have 70%+ turnout at the polls). If the 18-25 year old demographic actually showed up to vote with any kind of consistency you would see more attention paid to issues that affect that group. Get off your ass and vote...if you can't stand voting for either of the mainstream parties then vote for Nader. If you really want to jerk the chain of mainstream politics turn out to vote and get the 18-25 year old demographic up to 50-60% turnout.

Besides, wouldn't it be fun to watch some of the old farts trying to be hip in the next election?

 

[boolerboy]

look at it this way. In at the most 8 years we will have atleast one qualified presidential candidate - Leiberman or Cheney.

 

[thriftyrocker]

"By not shoring up the Social Security system now with surplus funds we are, by fiat, agreeing to raise payroll taxes in the future... I have called this kind of economics fiscally irresponsible."

Who said that? Gore? Lieberman? No, John McCain. More than likely, 20-30 year olds will be paying more in order for our parents to get their Social Security checks under Bush's plan.

Gore is more focused on keeping Social Security solvent than reinventing it, sure. However, in addition to keeping Social Security going, he also has his "Retirement Savings Plus" plan, in which that single mother you talk about can contribute $500 to a 401K-like plan and the government will match it with $1500. "If you understand the power of compound interest..."

Deciding which plan is better is more math than I am willing to do and depends much on your economic bracket, but it is for sure not a grand slam for Bush as your oversimplification tried to show.

I think Gore is speaking more to the 20-30 year old voters by having his really hot daughters campaign for him. All Bush can do is have his mom campaign, which is a lot less effective.

 

[Sonic625]

If I use a Coupon can I get free Gas mileage. Well, I at least get 2 hours off of work to go vote, If I go at luch time I will get 3 hrs Off.
Thanks,
Sonic625

 

[BLoop]

A quote from WashingtonPost.com about Bush's statements about Social Security in the last debate:

Bush gives an incomplete explanation of Social Security and his plans to change it.

Bush said, "Now remember, Social Security revenue exceeds expenses up until 2015... And you bet we're going to take a trillion dollars of your own money and let you invest it under safe guidelines to get a better rate of return on the money than the paltry 2 percent that the federal government gets for you today."

Bush's comments gloss over two important points. First, talk of a 2 percent return ignores the fact that some of the contributions a worker makes into Social Security go immediately to pay benefits to current retirees. Only part of it is invested (in government bonds) for future needs, and that portion earns a return higher than 2 percent.

As for the claim that the program is solvent until 2015: That's true under current law. But under Bush's plan to divert some of the payroll taxes to individual accounts, expenses would begin to exceed current revenues in 2005.

Like you said thriftyrocker, Gore's plan instead is to shore up Social Security so it will still be around in 30 years and he provides other programs to help that provide incentives to invest now towards retirement.

BTW, SuperRob that Discover article on voting is a good read. I wonder how many years we'll have to wait for something like that to be implemented.

 

[AdmanOK]

Having come from Australia, I find the lack of interest in voting unbelievable! I realize that many people don't like the two choices offered, but that's just tough, you're gonna end up with one of them anyway... so why not work out which one is best - ie least bad - for you and vote for them. Just seems to be common sense to me. I guess its just so you can bitch like crazy later and say "Well I didn't vote for them anyway". Just my 2c worth.

 

[elhumano]

Well, I have to say for my part that there are a lot of reasons not to vote. As someone mentioned above, the elections are not "probably" fixed, they dfinitely are. Any meaningful vote could be overturned, and would be overturned by the elctoral college if it wasn't intended. This country is not a true democracy, because democracy has never been a viable idea.. but let me tell you this...Turning out to vote is important, because it will make the candidates aware that our demographic (young folks) are politically aware and have needs to be met... Pluralism at work. Just show up in numbers, vote for Nader, because your vote isn't going to sway any republican-democrat decision for the state.

Also, keep in mind that if you do decide to vote Bush, you'll have to start paying internet taxes!

 

[daimon]

Immigrated from a communist country, I found the indifference of citizens for the well being of the nation disconcerting. Why would you not exercise the freedom, that others will and have died for? If you do not like either candidate, VOTE for Nader (he will not win anyway, but at least you'll send a message to the other two) or do something that send a message that you're not satisfy with the current system. Inaction of disillusion is the surest way to forfeit your freedom.

P.S I can't vote; not a citizen. Applied for citizenship 31/2 years ago, and still NOTHING. Have to love beauracracy at work.

 

[Scyber]

Well those of you that are sick of voting, because their are only two crappy candidates, you chould vote for Ralph Nader.

Now, I am not a fan of Nader, but I am going to vote for him. Why? Because if the green party recieves 5% of the vote they will qualify for federal funds in the next election. This will allow us to get the heck out of this senseless 2 party system.


Support the 3 party system, cause 2 parties a week is not enough

Scyber

 

[Audiofight]

Well put Scyber. I think Nader would be a good choice. I am uninformed about the political runnings this year. I do honestly believe that an voter in the dark about things is as bad if not worse than not voting at all.

No, 2 parties a week are not enough. God bless college and 7 nights a week of drinking we participate in.