Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Settle down Beavis. Polling stations are for voting only. If you start to incorporate free public health care into the process where do you stop it? Maybe the girl scouts should be allowed to sell cookies at polling stations? How about free condom giveaways at polling stations too? Free meals for the homeless? How about if we hand out $20 to everyone over 65 who votes?
Nobody is opposed to handing out free flu shots to seniors but a polling station is an inappropriate place for such activities. Someone else already raised the spectre of a "giveaway" that would favor certain blocks of voters.
The only thing you should get from your trip to a polling station is a sticker that says "I have voted, have you?"
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
It doesn't matter... The point is that it's an incentive that favors a specific group of people. It's no different than saying that every black person who votes gets $20. Or every person between the ages of 18-21 gets 10 free downloads at Napster for voting.
If they were giving away flu shots to EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE... then there is no favoritism to one group and it would be fine with me. But that's not what's happening here.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,213
- 5,794
- 126
Just proves that Democrats are the Culture of Life and Republicans the Culture of Death. If offering potentially life saving shots will attract Democrats rather than Republicans, then obviously Democrats prefer Life.
Seems rather ridiculous to criticize this idea. OTOH, it should be offered at all Voting places within the cities jurisdiction to avoid possible political controversy.
Seems rather ridiculous to criticize this idea. OTOH, it should be offered at all Voting places within the cities jurisdiction to avoid possible political controversy.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
But then you are offering incentives to vote to one group at the exclusion of others. Flu shots have a cash value. (Even when they are handed out for free at a clinic they still have value) It's a slippery slope.
What if they handed out a coupon for free cereal to every single mother who voted?
What the ****** is the big deal? Old people vote Republican more often anyway. And voting isn't required, they're just sharing a space. So WHY are we freaking out again?
(My first post is missing) I think Whooz has a point on this.
Imagine something that draws voters which is offered only in the precincts filled with one party - it's be unfair. A Statewide program would be ok.
If the flu shots are funded by the state, they should be statewide to make it fair for everyone. If they are funded by the city, they should be city-wide. If they are somehow funded by the precinct, then no one can complain except the voters in that precinct.
EDIT: Actually, it looks like it was privately funded by a philanthropy group. Then they can go wherever they please with these damn shots, provided it complies with laws, which it does. The only 'politically motivated' people here are the Republicans, who are concerned that their party's history of opposing public health legislation will bite them in the ass.
Granted the city can move to outlaw this act, but the intellectually honest can agree that it was the Republicans who were clearly politically motivated in this situation, as their actions were completely political. Heck, a Republican approved of the program until she found out it could have political implications that might hurt her. That's the definition of political motivation right there.
EDIT: Actually, it looks like it was privately funded by a philanthropy group. Then they can go wherever they please with these damn shots, provided it complies with laws, which it does. The only 'politically motivated' people here are the Republicans, who are concerned that their party's history of opposing public health legislation will bite them in the ass.
Granted the city can move to outlaw this act, but the intellectually honest can agree that it was the Republicans who were clearly politically motivated in this situation, as their actions were completely political. Heck, a Republican approved of the program until she found out it could have political implications that might hurt her. That's the definition of political motivation right there.
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
I actually back tracked a little in this thread. The more I thought about it... you just can't incentivize someone (anyone) to vote. No matter how well intentioned, innocent or non-biased the incentive is, the allowance of incentives at a polling place invites abuse.
A person's incentive for voting has to be the chance to have their voice heard through their ballot, nothing more. A polling station has to be a destination with a singular purpose.
If they want to give free flu shots there are plenty of places that arent voting polls to do so.
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 25,476
- 3,974
- 126
The poorer ones do need a little more help. But there are plenty of resources to help them - we do not need a redundant election based system.
You are looking at it wrong. The flu shot will NOT change someone's vote. That is a rediculous idea. What it can do is to bring in people from one party to vote. People who would vote for one party but just stayed at home because voting isn't valued to them. But if you add a value (free item), then they may very well come out and vote. What happens? They didn't change their vote at all! Instead, they added a vote that otherwise wouldn't have been voted.
If the incentive is in place that will mostly invite one party, then it is a bad idea. What if the incentive was a BMW free to anyone with a $500,000-$1,000,000 income who also live in a mostly republican district? Who would come out? The wealthy Republicans. Sure, some Democrats will take advantage of that offer, but it would be mostly Republicans. That could be enough to sway an otherwise close statewide election. Did any Democrats switch to Republican with that incentive? No. But if it brought in 10,000 R votes and 1,000 D votes, that is a net 9,000 vote gain to the Rs.
There just isn't a good enough reason to do anything which might jeopardize our election system.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
The bottom line is that it is inappropriate for any service to coincide with voting; regardless of the intent or source. Voting stations are for voting, period.
Ok, that statement is just plain ridiculous. You really need to seek help. (just dont seek help at a polling stationm ok? good)
Sheik Yerbouti
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2005
- 14,058
- 5,398
- 136
This is a great idea, just like the option of registering to vote when you get/renew your drivers license. Both of my parents are elderly and the idea of them getting a free (yes there are such things) flu shot AND get the chance to vote is a fantastic idea. Some elderly folks don't get out, and don't go out unless they have to and try to accomplish several tasks in one trip. This would take care of 2 things. I can't believe people are so fcking selfish they wouldn't allow this.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter