340
If Clinton, Trump, and Did Not Vote were presidential candidates in 2016
(brilliantmaps.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
340 points (97.2% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
3357 readers
2 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is why voting needs to be really easy. If a phone app/website is good enough for banking, it is good enough for voting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
I knew it would be that Tom Scott video
Yeah, I think it's the best detailed, but beginner-friendly, overview of why electronic voting is a bad idea. Heck, I'm Australian too, and we treat pens as too high-tech for our elections because they could be switched for ones with disappearing ink.
IMO analogue is just better for elections. Whether mail-in or not, there's a physical object with your vote attached, not just a few bytes in a computer. It is far, far harder for a bad actor to control an election when they have to contend with faking thousands of bits of paper.
How would that not just make them vote due to whatever bullshit commercial they saw the day before?
How is that any different to now, beyond just more people being disenfranchised from voting due to not being able to stand in line for hours?
Its different in that they actually have to take effort to vote so that would tend toward more educated voters and ones that actually care and are not just swayed for a moment while laying in bed.
Yeah, no - that’s not how it works in the US.
There is only one political party intent on making it harder to vote (GOP), as they have long deduced that they are unable to win when voter turnout-out is high. Reminder that the only time a Republican president won the popular vote in the last 30+ years was in 2004 - and required both 9/11 and the incumbency advantage to get it done.
Conservatives don’t want educated voters, they just want to incense their (gullible) base and disenfranchise everyone else from voting.
If conservatives are the ones that dont want educated voters, why do the democrats directly seek to get younger people to vote and even want to lower the voting age?
No one is trying to get the voting age lowered. Could some people be talking about it and some media hacks focus on that talk? Sure, but not anyone with any power to do anything. It's like those on the right who want to increase it again to 21. Are there some talking about it? Sure. Will anything be done about it? Not anymore chance than it would be lowered to under 18. It's a BS media talking point click bait
Sorry man but you are wrong. It was a couple years ago, but they had an actual vote on this and about half of house democrats voted to lower the age, and virtually no republicans did. Democrats would like to lower the age because they would get more votes. I can look it up if you wish, but its a thing they want.
I didn't realize Meng had tried to do this in 21 but it didn't even get a vote as far as I can see which is why it was reintroduced again in 23 and it hasn't moved. So they being a small group of Dems who can't even get it to a vote doesn't mean that much so I stand by not anyone with any power will do anything. It's not like Dem's have some Project 2025 with this in that goal book for the future.
It hasnt gone anywhere because it wont pass. Do you doubt that democrats would pass this if they could and get more voters?
You said there was a vote though? It couldn't get enough Dem's to even bring it to a vote. And no I don't think a majority of Dem's would choose to allow non adults to vote and it would certainly be dead if it made it to the floor. There are significantly more examples of Repub's trying to restrict voting since the 60's than Dem's trying to expand voting beyond groups of adults who were deprived from voting like women, African Americans, etc.
They voted on it in the house, and for democrats it was 125 for and 108 against, and 1 republican voting for it. So yes a majority of house democrats voted for it.
Why are you conflating age with intelligence?
I CORRELATE age with knowing what is going and being deceived less. So now see above question.
That is not correlation; that is textbook conflation.
If you want more educated voters, why not make it mandatory to attain higher education? You don’t need to answer that rhetorical question, we already know the answer; the Republicans would never win a state-wide or national election ever again.
The reason to enfranchise more voters by making it easier to participate will not only moderate both sides of the political spectrum by requiring them to stop pandering to their base, but also serve to increase civic knowledge and experience in the general population.
Young citizens are under-represented in government, and yet they are the ones who are going to be most heavily impacted by the policies enacted. They should have every right to have a say in how their future is shaped.
If anyone should be excluded from the political process, it should be retirees. But of course this is also something else that the GOP wouldn’t ever allow they because again, they would never again win a state-wide or national election ever again.
Returning to the original point; it’s not the 2000s anymore, and it’s perfectly acceptable to sign multi-year contracts with colleges and banks for tens of thousands of dollars - what makes voting any different?
Beyond of course removing the voter suppression barrier that is likely there to serve your preferred candidate.
I used correlate very intentionally because that is literally what it is. It is textbook the definition of correlation.
Higher education does not equal better voter. Life experience and having a mind that works well is the best way to get a better voter. And I would be one of the people that realizes that our current voting system doesnt work and we get to many voters that dont know what they are voting for. So maybe a test would be in order to vote, or some other thing.
I disagree that we need to cater to the laziest people in the country to get their vote. Voting is already very easy, especially in states with a mail-in ballot. If you can't even be bothered to open a letter, fill in a couple of bubbles, sign your name, and drop an envelope in your mailbox, then idk that we actually want your opinion on who should run the country.
By "you" I just mean anyone, not actually you.
Disabled people exist so it wouldn't just be "catering to lazy people." And like you pointed out, not all states have mail in ballots. An online option would be good for people who literally can't stand in line for hours.
As someone who works in IT, an online option is a terrible idea for a number of reasons. Instead, every registered voter should get a mail in ballot automatically sent, and if you prefer to vote in person you can do that instead.
I like your idea better. It makes waaay more sense and more people would probably vote that way honestly