If it weren't for old people voting

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Linflas
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?
I can tell you where part of went - to my ex-wife's worthless drug and alcohol addicted brother when he got deathly sick. Someone they got ss to pay for 200k of hospital care before he finally od'd a year later.

Another place is to a guy I knew years ago in college - something about aid to dependent children. And he didn't need it - used it for flying lessons.

The rest (and more) is going to contractors in iraq.

Sorry about your dad.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,392
78
91
Originally posted by: Martin
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.
Your vote is not wasted, your guy just didn't win. I understand the basics of the Canadian system as I am married to a Canadian. Your system is much more amenable to multiple parties but in that type of system you will likely have a winner that does not get over 50% of the vote. It is actually quite different than the US system which was set up to be a 2 party system from the outset. As for gerrymandering I agree with you but it has been with our system since the very beginning, the word itself was invented in to make fun of the shape of election districts in Massachusetts in 1812 by combining the governors last name and salamander. In the end though your riding is represented by the person that got the largest percentage of the vote even if it is not the majority of voters in that riding so I still don't understand why you think your vote is wasted.
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
1
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
i am glad when idiots get distracted by bright shiny things
I will glue a bright, shiny nickel to the floor of each voting booth during the next election. ;) Perhaps a few of those idiots will forget to pull the lever.

Was it California or some other state that tried to lower the voting age a couple of years ago?
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: Martin
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.
Your vote is not wasted, your guy just didn't win. I understand the basics of the Canadian system as I am married to a Canadian. Your system is much more amenable to multiple parties but in that type of system you will likely have a winner that does not get over 50% of the vote. It is actually quite different than the US system which was set up to be a 2 party system from the outset. As for gerrymandering I agree with you but it has been with our system since the very beginning, the word itself was invented in to make fun of the shape of election districts in Massachusetts in 1812 by combining the governors last name and salamander. In the end though your riding is represented by the person that got the largest percentage of the vote even if it is not the majority of voters in that riding so I still don't understand why you think your vote is wasted.
The systems are different when it comes to executive vs legislative powers, but the voting processes are very similar - split up the country/state/province into districts, have people vote for reps in that district only, send reps to congress/parliament/electoral college etc.

The problem is that the wasted votes I mentioned filter up and we end up with huge gap between what people vote for and the make up of the legislature. As I mentioned in Ontario the 8% that voted green have absolutely no representation whatsoever, and its worse in the federal level. The Bloc Quebecois represents the view of about 10.5% of Canada's population, yet holds 16.5% of the seats, while the Green Party represents roughly 5% and holds no seats whatsoever.

New Zealand switched to a hybrid district-proportional representation system and they saw the gap between votes and legislature make up fall from 11% to 1%. That's why MMP is so superior to the systems currently in place.
 

BigJelly

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2002
1,717
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Yep, the Electoral System needs to go!

I too believe proportional representation is the better way.
Wish they still taught students about states rights in school :(

Electoral College FTW
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Originally posted by: FoBoT
i am glad when idiots get distracted by bright shiny things
I will glue a bright, shiny nickel to the floor of each voting booth during the next election. ;) Perhaps a few of those idiots will forget to pull the lever.

Was it California or some other state that tried to lower the voting age a couple of years ago?
:D
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,392
78
91
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Yep, the Electoral System needs to go!

I too believe proportional representation is the better way.
Wish they still taught students about states rights in school :(

Electoral College FTW
Too bad they didn't teach them the function of the Senate in the early 1900's as the 16th and 17th ammendments gutted the states power.
 

DangerAardvark

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2004
7,581
0
0
Wait! Ipod video or regular? I might trade my voting rights in they threw in a charging station...

Okay, how about my voting rights, my rights to due process and my freedom to assemble for a Wii? Think about it. I'll even throw in all my miranda rights for Mario Galaxy.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
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.
yeap. it is really suprising.

i vote in local elections every time. that way i have a say on stuff.
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,224
0
0
I'd give up my right to vote to purchase thousands of acres of land. I vote, but after the last two presidential elections, I realize that the system is beyond a fix and ultimately corrupt.

Rogo
 
May 31, 2001
15,326
1
0
I try to vote in every election. I am registered as a Republican in my state, though the only reason I have not changed my party affiliation at this point is because the Republicans have a closed Primary, so you have to be registered as a Republican to have any say in their Primary.

When former Senator Frank Murkowski became our Governor and appointed his daughter to take his place in D.C., a lot of people weren't happy with that appointment. He did do some good for the state (Thanks to him we now have Unrestricted Right to Carry), but between appointing his daughter to take his place, the fact that he bought a private jet for government use that the government didn't really need, and some other fiascoes on his part, we didn't want to keep him. Thing is, if he had won the Primary, he probably would have beat Tony Knowles, a former Governor we were only too happy to get rid of.

It doesn't take term limits to change things, it takes voters that get pissed-off enough to finally do something. Not only did Murkowski not win the Primary, he can in last of the three candidates running for the Republican nomination. That is a pretty clear statement to an incumbent that was running for re-election.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
9
81
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
I'd give up my right to vote to purchase thousands of acres of land. I vote, but after the last two presidential elections, I realize that the system is beyond a fix and ultimately corrupt.

Rogo
i hope you realize that you vote for more then the presidential elections right?

 

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
10
81
I know I'll catch hell for this, but I don't vote because it's an inconvenience. Not only do I have to figure out where I'm supposed to vote, I have to stand in line and wait to vote.

Also, I haven't seen a candidate I want to vote for. If I vote, I'd be voting for the person I dislike the least, and I don't like that idea. You don't have to be a good politician to get elected, you just have to not be the worst.
 

prism

Senior member
Oct 23, 2004
995
0
0
Originally posted by: CPA
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
That's right, get rid of the foundation of a Republic because your boy didn't win. boohoo.
The foundation of a Republic is the Electoral College? Do you even know how many stars are on the U.S. flag?
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
If they got rid of the electoral college bullshit then I bet a lot more people would vote.

This has nothing to do with whether people agreed with the results in 2000 or 2004, the electoral is an archaic travesty that needs to go. It is in no way reflective of a true democratic republic. Does anyone seriously wonder why the belief that individual votes don't matter is so popular, even amongst educated individuals? By the current American political system, your vote literally DOESN'T matter.

Edit: To those talking about non-presidential elections, I'm pretty sure the article was in regards to presidential elections. Personally, I vote every time I'm able. For $1 million, I'd gladly surrender this right (statistically, enough people vote in my district to make my vote insignificant; I realize the danger of too many people doing this, I'm just confident that it probably won't matter in the end).
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: Prism
Originally posted by: CPA
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
That's right, get rid of the foundation of a Republic because your boy didn't win. boohoo.
The foundation of a Republic is the Electoral College? Do you even know how many stars are on the U.S. flag?
CPA sometimes mistakes Off Topic for the P&N forum and likes to make colorful attacks on people who he suspects are liberals, just ignore him.

He posts on here when he gets home from the bath house and needs to confirm his manliness. He dropped out of high school and doesn't actually know how the American government works; he believes that it's a republic (it's not) and that there is no corruption or flaws with the system (there are several, even politicians can pick out at least one).

He's one of those types that believes the American flag should have 51 stars (Canada being the 51st state), that democracy will be the next big fad in Iraq any day now (it won't), and that country music is our most valuable commodity. He also has a big chubby for Bush. Bush singlehandedly protects us from the gays, after all. If not for him, they'd be breaking down our doors, having sex with our children and forcing everyone to marry the same gender.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
5
0
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Haha, do you have a link to that survey? If it's real that's crazy. The founding fathers are probably rolling over in their grave knowing that they put their lives on the line for democracy only to have people trade it for an iPod. :laugh:
It was a NYC college. Basically the kids rationalized that their vote didn't matter because the presidential election was already decided for that state. NY is a Democrat stronghold, so the candidates won't be doing any serious running there and there's virtually nothing the students could do that would make their votes matter on the issue.
That makes sense for next years' election, but what about a decade from now? What if you moved? Were they permanently giving up their right to vote?

I still vote, but I think of the myth of Sisyphus every time.
 

jandrews

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2007
1,313
0
0
This reminds me of that gangs of new york movie where they got bums shaved and paid them 1 dollar to not only give up there vote but to vote for the candidate of the other persons choosing.

I hate people with their 'how things used to be' attitude. People were always greedy, selfish and unnapreciative of the rights they have, sorry to break it to you.
 

Beev

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2006
7,775
0
0
I've never voted or even registered to vote, and I never will. It's useless.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Things suck and it's all going downhill. Only person I would vote for is Ron Paul. It's him or no one.
While I agree that if I can I will vote for Ron Paul, but if he is not an option you can't abstain from voting, you need to pick the lesser of 2 evils. I for one will vote against Billary even if it is for Guilianni.
 

Rhuby

Junior Member
Nov 27, 2007
1
0
0
I think everyone has the right to vote and he/she must exercise that right. Some of you guys may find it useless maybe because they don't have much concern in what's going on in the country so it doesn't make sense for them. I'm not saying that we have to be an activists but we must at least be vigilant somtimes, watch TV or listen news to your radio. If you find it boring because you also want some cool stuff, you can also visit sirius.com like I often do.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY