If it weren't for old people voting

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Originally posted by: jjones
I really wish that for at least one election no one would vote. Maybe then the politicians would get the message. Unfortunately, too many idiots think that they should vote no matter what.

I've never voted in my life and don't intend to. It's a waste of time from my point of view because as it stands right now, things will never change. Money and influence buys not just the election, but those candidates available to even be elected.
Look at some other candidates then.. Learn how things work.

Money does not buy YOUR vote - at least you're implying that it does not. So, find a candidate that you support, register for the party (or independent), and vote for that candidate.

People that cry and complain but do not vote have no real reason to cry and complain.. You can write in whoever you want if there isn't a candidate you like.

Believe me.. it gets counted. Even 1% voting for a fringe or independent candidate can reward the entire race to the other dominating party.. The parties definitely look to that for which direction they need to move.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
65,471
20,585
136
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: Linflas

News flash for you. "Old people" are the ones that have been paying into this system for their entire lives. The money taken out of their paychecks over which they had no say about could have been invested and grown over their working career but instead was confiscated by government with the promise that it would be available at retirement. It will be a cold day in hell before anyone that has been contributing to this ponzi scheme against their will will agree to any reform that means they do not get back what was involuntarily taken over their working career.
News flash: Except for the most recent of retirees, most paid no where near as mush into the SS system as they are taking out, even when including interest. The WWII generation got a sweet deal with SS.

When only old people vote it screws up the system as they tend to be short sighted and very greedy.
Bullshit. My father was part of the WWII generation and he contributed to SS for his entire working life. He did not even collect 4 years worth of benefit before his death. Where did all that money he paid in go? Where did the money of every other WWII generation retiree that did not live into their 80's and 90's where they might have actually exhausted their original contributions go? The reality is the money was taken with a guarantee that when you retire it would be there for you. The only people that got a sweet deal with SS were those that were old or approaching retirement age when the system was implemented and received benefits they never contributed. It is not greedy to expect the government to live up to the commitment and obligation it assumed when it decided it needed to be in the entitlement business.
The contribution requirements for SS were minuscule until Reagan's reforms in the early eighties. Prior to that, SS tax was no where near the level required to cover future benefits. As the WWII generation moved through their peak earning years they got a good deal. More recent retirees are getting hosed somewhat and future retirees will get royally hosed as the Congress/President inflate future benefits away.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,147
3,916
136
Originally posted by: Scouzer
We (Canada and the US) need proportional representation like Europe. This is the only way to make voting matter.

Where I live, the Progressive Conservatives will be elected every time no matter what. Therefore, there is no point whatsoever in voting.

^^ one of the beefs with the electoral college, if you live in a heavily conservative/liberal state and you're of the other mindset, you're essentially discouraged to vote. This is speaking on the scale of the Presidential election - as far as state/municipal levels there is a bit more variety here and there.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Originally posted by: Scouzer
We (Canada and the US) need proportional representation like Europe. This is the only way to make voting matter.

Where I live, the Progressive Conservatives will be elected every time no matter what. Therefore, there is no point whatsoever in voting.
Then register for their party and vote for a candidate that isn't a Progressive Conservative. There.. you had influence.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,776
28
81
Yep, the Electoral System needs to go!

I too believe proportional representation is the better way.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
65,471
20,585
136
Originally posted by: TheVrolok
Originally posted by: Scouzer
We (Canada and the US) need proportional representation like Europe. This is the only way to make voting matter.

Where I live, the Progressive Conservatives will be elected every time no matter what. Therefore, there is no point whatsoever in voting.

^^ one of the beefs with the electoral college, if you live in a heavily conservative/liberal state and you're of the other mindset, you're essentially discouraged to vote. This is speaking on the scale of the Presidential election - as far as state/municipal levels there is a bit more variety here and there.
However, this isn't a problem with the electoral college. It is up to each state as to how they allocate electoral votes. Every state, right now, could dump the winner-takes-all system and use a proportional system for sending electors. It would not require a Constitutional amendment.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,147
3,916
136
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: TheVrolok
Originally posted by: Scouzer
We (Canada and the US) need proportional representation like Europe. This is the only way to make voting matter.

Where I live, the Progressive Conservatives will be elected every time no matter what. Therefore, there is no point whatsoever in voting.

^^ one of the beefs with the electoral college, if you live in a heavily conservative/liberal state and you're of the other mindset, you're essentially discouraged to vote. This is speaking on the scale of the Presidential election - as far as state/municipal levels there is a bit more variety here and there.
However, this isn't a problem with the electoral college. It is up to each state as to how they allocate electoral votes. Every state, right now, could dump the winner-takes-all system and use a proportional system for sending electors. It would not require a Constitutional amendment.
Yes, in fairy-tale land that could happen. I realize that the electors in the electoral college DO NOT need to vote in line with the state's popular vote; but, in any stretch of the imagination, in the real world, do you see any elector dissenting? Not a shot. Even a proportional system will still be rounded, however. Straight up popular vote is the only way to ensure that everyone's vote matters 100%. This is not to say there aren't problems with an election by 100% popular vote. I love this discussion, but I suppose we're really leaving OT for PN, aren't we? :(

So in summary, man, what's with people wanting to be trendy with their lame ass iPods, I'll take an old school iRiver H340 for my right to vote! w00t for custom firmware!
 

Scouzer

Lifer
Jun 3, 2001
10,359
4
0
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: Scouzer
We (Canada and the US) need proportional representation like Europe. This is the only way to make voting matter.

Where I live, the Progressive Conservatives will be elected every time no matter what. Therefore, there is no point whatsoever in voting.
Then register for their party and vote for a candidate that isn't a Progressive Conservative. There.. you had influence.
How? If the PC wins my riding, then my vote is wasted. The PC wins over 80% of the vote every time, therefore there's no influence whatsoever.
 

Minjin

Platinum Member
Jan 18, 2003
2,207
1
0
Wow. The amount of people who think that we only vote for Presidents (or that that is all that matters) is astonishing. The most important positions you can vote for, the ones that have the biggest impact on your everyday lives, and the ones where your vote truly matters are state and local positions.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,147
3,916
136
Originally posted by: Minjin
Wow. The amount of people who think that we only vote for Presidents (or that that is all that matters) is astonishing. The most important positions you can vote for, the ones that have the biggest impact on your everyday lives, and the ones where your vote truly matters are state and local positions.
Very true. Sadly, I haven't participated much in my local elections because, well I'm only 22 so I haven't been legal for many. In addition, as a college kid, I'm only a transient in this area so I don't feel that I should be making decisions that will have implications after I've done my time here and I don't really live at home (or plan to move back to the same location) so similar logic goes for that area. I'm excited for when I get established wherever I end up so that I can get more involved in local politics.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,392
78
91
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: Linflas

News flash for you. "Old people" are the ones that have been paying into this system for their entire lives. The money taken out of their paychecks over which they had no say about could have been invested and grown over their working career but instead was confiscated by government with the promise that it would be available at retirement. It will be a cold day in hell before anyone that has been contributing to this ponzi scheme against their will will agree to any reform that means they do not get back what was involuntarily taken over their working career.
News flash: Except for the most recent of retirees, most paid no where near as mush into the SS system as they are taking out, even when including interest. The WWII generation got a sweet deal with SS.

When only old people vote it screws up the system as they tend to be short sighted and very greedy.
Bullshit. My father was part of the WWII generation and he contributed to SS for his entire working life. He did not even collect 4 years worth of benefit before his death. Where did all that money he paid in go? Where did the money of every other WWII generation retiree that did not live into their 80's and 90's where they might have actually exhausted their original contributions go? The reality is the money was taken with a guarantee that when you retire it would be there for you. The only people that got a sweet deal with SS were those that were old or approaching retirement age when the system was implemented and received benefits they never contributed. It is not greedy to expect the government to live up to the commitment and obligation it assumed when it decided it needed to be in the entitlement business.
The contribution requirements for SS were minuscule until Reagan's reforms in the early eighties. Prior to that, SS tax was no where near the level required to cover future benefits. As the WWII generation moved through their peak earning years they got a good deal. More recent retirees are getting hosed somewhat and future retirees will get royally hosed as the Congress/President inflate future benefits away.
The contributions were not minuscule. The SS reform passed in 1983 accelerated some tax rate increases that were already in place, added the Federal workforce to SS withholding, and added in a method to gradually increase the the age of eligibility for full benefits and made up to 1/2 of the benefit subject to income tax (double taxation in reality). There were some other things done with that attempt at reform but it essentially just postponed the insolvency date from sometime in the 1980's to sometime in the mid 2000's. The tax rate is still not set to cover future benefits and if they ever try and set it to that they will have a political upheaval the likes of which have not been seen before. SS pays out benefits way beyond what the scope of the original system was set up for through disability payments, survivor benefits etc.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
I just go vote for the cookies and drinks, sometimes I don't even make it to the voting machine.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,147
3,916
136
Originally posted by: KK
I just go vote for the cookies and drinks, sometimes I don't even make it to the voting machine.
Where do I sign up for the cookies and drinks? I'm getting screwed at the polls.
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
Considering I don't vote nor do I plan to ever vote because my vote will never, ever have any effect on any election, ever -- I would give up my right to vote for a free cheeseburger.
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,616
0
76
Originally posted by: Prism
/rant

I'd take a free iPod (make it a Sansa) to give up my right to vote, seeing as how votes don't matter any more (i.e. 2000 U.S. Presidential Election).

If they get rid of that gorramn Electoral College, I might reconsider...

/endrant
Votes do count - especially in 2008
It's probably going to make history with the choice between: a white woman or a black man

+the founding fathers made the electoral vote for a reason: the general public may be too stupid to vote for themselves - and maybe even with the electoral vote, they overestimated the public. Now people don't EVEN vote.

I hear the same retards who are complaining about the wrong things that are going on in politics not going to the polls.
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,616
0
76
Originally posted by: Scouzer
We (Canada and the US) need proportional representation like Europe. This is the only way to make voting matter.

Where I live, the Progressive Conservatives will be elected every time no matter what. Therefore, there is no point whatsoever in voting.
See - that's what I'm talking about
What if it's cause all of the people who care to even take less than half an hour of their day to wait at the polls are the only ones voting for those "Progressive Conservatives."
What if all the Republicans in California voted while the same # of democrats voted - Maybe California would vote Republican

Those are big "what-ifs" of course :D

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Yep, the Electoral System needs to go!

I too believe proportional representation is the better way.
Then again - looking at how stupid people are these days... (but then again most of those stupid people don't vote...)
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Scouzer
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: Scouzer
We (Canada and the US) need proportional representation like Europe. This is the only way to make voting matter.

Where I live, the Progressive Conservatives will be elected every time no matter what. Therefore, there is no point whatsoever in voting.
Then register for their party and vote for a candidate that isn't a Progressive Conservative. There.. you had influence.
How? If the PC wins my riding, then my vote is wasted. The PC wins over 80% of the vote every time, therefore there's no influence whatsoever.
Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand how bad the current system is or their irrational fear of change hampers their ability to think straight, as evidenced the result of the Ontario referendum.

I live in a similar riding (except it goes to the NDP every time), so a person would be downright stupid not to trade their worthless vote for tuition or whatever.


As for you OP, we'd probably be better off. There were polls before the Ontario referendum (wiki it for more info), 18-35 year olds supported it 2-1, while 45+ opposed it more than 2-1. So we have to thank old people for still having a shitty unrepresentative system. Thanks :roll:
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,392
78
91
Originally posted by: Scouzer
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: Scouzer
We (Canada and the US) need proportional representation like Europe. This is the only way to make voting matter.

Where I live, the Progressive Conservatives will be elected every time no matter what. Therefore, there is no point whatsoever in voting.
Then register for their party and vote for a candidate that isn't a Progressive Conservative. There.. you had influence.
How? If the PC wins my riding, then my vote is wasted. The PC wins over 80% of the vote every time, therefore there's no influence whatsoever.
So in reality you have a problem with majority rule since 80% of your fellow citizens don't agree with your choice of representation. Are you one of those that think that everyone should get a trophy or ribbon in a school contest so there are no "losers"?
 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
I'd give up my vote for a happy meal.

Come to think of it, that would be a successful campaign strategy. Instead of advertising, buy people stuff instead. Whoever buys me the best stuff gets my vote. That's how it works with legitimate corporate bribery, I wanna get something out of it too.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: Scouzer
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Originally posted by: Scouzer
We (Canada and the US) need proportional representation like Europe. This is the only way to make voting matter.

Where I live, the Progressive Conservatives will be elected every time no matter what. Therefore, there is no point whatsoever in voting.
Then register for their party and vote for a candidate that isn't a Progressive Conservative. There.. you had influence.
How? If the PC wins my riding, then my vote is wasted. The PC wins over 80% of the vote every time, therefore there's no influence whatsoever.
So in reality you have a problem with majority rule since 80% of your fellow citizens don't agree with your choice of representation. Are you one of those that think that everyone should get a trophy or ribbon in a school contest so there are no "losers"?
Do you even know wtf you're talking about? We're talking about the British first-past-the-post parliamentary system. Under this system, you vote for an MP from your riding, not for the party. Thus, if you live in a riding such as mine or Scouzer's and disagree with the majority in your neighbourhood, your vote is wasted.

Example: the 2007 Ontario election. The NDP rep won my riding by with ~40%, so he gets to represent 100% of the people based on what 40% of them wanted. Because his 40% support is about twice that of other parties, the other 60% know their vote is essentially wasted.

So you know what happened province wide? 8% of people voted for the Green party, but because of this flawed system, there aren't ANY representatives from that party! So how can anyone support a system which fails to represent such significant parts of the population? And then people wonder why turnouts are lower compared to Europe.

Now, I talk about Canada, but the system we have here is very similar, but actually better than the one in the US - you guys haven't even figured out that you shouldn't let politicians gerrymander the districts based polls.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Xylitol
I heard on the radio that a recent study at some university showed that around 60% of the people there would give up their right to vote for a free iPod.
Makes perfect sense:

give up right to vote = isolation
ipod = isolation
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY