Voting

  • fitone

    Posts: 276

    Oct 19, 2010 5:28 PM GMT
    Do you think gay guys are more likely to vote than straight ones?

    I'm very political, and have never missed voting in an election.

    My opinion is that a lot of younger gay guys take the gains we have made for granted and are more apathetic about elections.

    I'd love to be wrong about this.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 5:40 PM GMT
    I haven't seen any data on it, but I'm sure there are some studies out there somewhere.

    There have been a couple of times when I couldn't vote because I hadn't submitted my paperwork in time (like when I moved). Otherwise, I make sure I vote. I was very proud and excited the first time I could vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 6:04 PM GMT
    I really should start voting again. Only problem is, I haven't seen a candidate I can agree with since Clinton, and I only voted for him because he's a [very] distant family member.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 6:26 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidI really should start voting again. Only problem is, I haven't seen a candidate I can agree with since Clinton, and I only voted for him because he's a [very] distant family member.


    You can always vote against someone, rather than for someone. Unfortunately, I feel like I sometimes have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or for the devil I know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 6:33 PM GMT
    I am a political hack by profession so I run a lot of campaigns, work with local party officials, and I most of all construct lists of likely voters from voter files.

    Young people never vote. Only older people regularly vote in each election.

    This is a truth all across the country. I ran a list the other day of everyone in a particular district that voted in all four of the last four general elections plus who voted in the recent primary. Less than 10% of those people were under the age of 65.

    This is true if they are gay or straight. I had a list of members of local LGBT political groups and I ran them against the voter file. The result was no different than that of the general population.

    Getting data on LGBT voters is difficult as that information is not tracked. But here is the idea: LGBT people should be more likely to vote since our rights are at stake and we have more to gain by voting than other people. Who else can we say that about? Ethnic and racial minorities. The Latino vote is pretty regional: strong and organized in some areas, less so in most. The Black vote doesn't exist outside of city party politics and even then only sporadically.

    So, this premise that the more you have at stake the more likely you are to vote as a group is sadly not very true. I could go on why I think that is, but Herr Proffesor is babbling on.
  • tongun18

    Posts: 593

    Oct 19, 2010 6:42 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidI am a political hack by profession so I run a lot of campaigns, work with local party officials, and I most of all construct lists of likely voters from voter files.

    Young people never vote. Only older people regularly vote in each election.

    This is a truth all across the country. I ran a list the other day of everyone in a particular district that voted in all four of the last four general elections plus who voted in the recent primary. Less than 10% of those people were under the age of 65.

    This is true if they are gay or straight. I had a list of members of local LGBT political groups and I ran them against the voter file. The result was no different than that of the general population.

    Getting data on LGBT voters is difficult as that information is not tracked. But here is the idea: LGBT people should be more likely to vote since our rights are at stake and we have more to gain by voting than other people. Who else can we say that about? Ethnic and racial minorities. The Latino vote is pretty regional: strong and organized in some areas, less so in most. The Black vote doesn't exist outside of city party politics and even then only sporadically.

    So, this premise that the more you have at stake the more likely you are to vote as a group is sadly not very true. I could go on why I think that is, but Herr Proffesor is babbling on.


    That's so discouraging! I can't believe we live in a society that's more likely to vote (and pay to do so) for American Idol rather then something that will actually have an impact on their life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 7:23 PM GMT
    lissenup said
    paulflexes saidI really should start voting again. Only problem is, I haven't seen a candidate I can agree with since Clinton, and I only voted for him because he's a [very] distant family member.


    You can always vote against someone, rather than for someone. Unfortunately, I feel like I sometimes have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or for the devil I know.
    That's the problem. To vote against someone you don't like, you have to vote for someone you don't like. Voting is a way of showing support, and I just find it unethical to support someone I don't really support. Both the Demoplican and Republicrat candidates are almost always more corrupt than I care to show support to. I'll give credit where it's due, but I don't believe shit in the campaign speeches. They'll say anything to get votes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 7:43 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    lissenup said
    paulflexes saidI really should start voting again. Only problem is, I haven't seen a candidate I can agree with since Clinton, and I only voted for him because he's a [very] distant family member.


    You can always vote against someone, rather than for someone. Unfortunately, I feel like I sometimes have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or for the devil I know.
    That's the problem. To vote against someone you don't like, you have to vote for someone you don't like. Voting is a way of showing support, and I just find it unethical to support someone I don't really support. Both the Demoplican and Republicrat candidates are almost always more corrupt than I care to show support to. I'll give credit where it's due, but I don't believe shit in the campaign speeches. They'll say anything to get votes.


    I know... right now I'm debating on if I should vote for Cuomo for governor. He's been evasive on how he will balance the budget and what programs he will cut. NY state has been in crisis for a while and needs strong leadership, but I don't want to cut good programs to balance the budget.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 9:13 PM GMT
    lissenup said
    paulflexes said
    lissenup said
    paulflexes saidI really should start voting again. Only problem is, I haven't seen a candidate I can agree with since Clinton, and I only voted for him because he's a [very] distant family member.


    You can always vote against someone, rather than for someone. Unfortunately, I feel like I sometimes have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or for the devil I know.
    That's the problem. To vote against someone you don't like, you have to vote for someone you don't like. Voting is a way of showing support, and I just find it unethical to support someone I don't really support. Both the Demoplican and Republicrat candidates are almost always more corrupt than I care to show support to. I'll give credit where it's due, but I don't believe shit in the campaign speeches. They'll say anything to get votes.


    I know... right now I'm debating on if I should vote for Cuomo for governor. He's been evasive on how he will balance the budget and what programs he will cut. NY state has been in crisis for a while and needs strong leadership, but I don't want to cut good programs to balance the budget.


    So forget about balancing the budget. Just spend until everything implodes one day -- at least it's all for a good cause! Makes perfect sense.
  • tongun18

    Posts: 593

    Oct 19, 2010 9:14 PM GMT
    lissenup said
    paulflexes said
    lissenup said
    paulflexes saidI really should start voting again. Only problem is, I haven't seen a candidate I can agree with since Clinton, and I only voted for him because he's a [very] distant family member.


    You can always vote against someone, rather than for someone. Unfortunately, I feel like I sometimes have to vote for the lesser of two evils, or for the devil I know.
    That's the problem. To vote against someone you don't like, you have to vote for someone you don't like. Voting is a way of showing support, and I just find it unethical to support someone I don't really support. Both the Demoplican and Republicrat candidates are almost always more corrupt than I care to show support to. I'll give credit where it's due, but I don't believe shit in the campaign speeches. They'll say anything to get votes.


    I know... right now I'm debating on if I should vote for Cuomo for governor. He's been evasive on how he will balance the budget and what programs he will cut. NY state has been in crisis for a while and needs strong leadership, but I don't want to cut good programs to balance the budget.


    How would you propose to balance the budget then? What constitutes a good program? I'm willing to bet all programs are considered good to the people they serve. I ask in earnest because I think CA is in roughly the same situation as NY. How do you balance a budget without cutting spending or raising taxes? I don't think you can. People, families, and business can ill afford more taxes right now. The only thing left is to cut spending.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 9:16 PM GMT
    I think part of the reason youth don't vote is that the process to register entails methods that are familiar to older people (does not require internet), and unfamiliar to younger people (does not care if cannot do via internet or phone).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 9:18 PM GMT
    JAKEBENSON saidI think part of the reason youth don't vote is that the process to register entails methods that are familiar to older people (does not require internet), and unfamiliar to younger people (does not care if cannot do via internet or phone).


    In Oregon you can register via their website and youth numbers are still shit. I find that plenty of youth are, like, totally all about voting and stuff. They will gladly register but getting them to actually vote is tough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 9:19 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidI really should start voting again. Only problem is, I haven't seen a candidate I can agree with since Clinton, and I only voted for him because he's a [very] distant family member.


    Why haven't you voted in the primary then? I am pretty underwhelmed with the candidates in the general election for national office, but during the primary? Shit, that is where the real game is at.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 9:27 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]fitone said[/cite]Do you think gay guys are more likely to vote than straight ones?

    I'm very political, and have never missed voting in an election.

    My opinion is that a lot of younger gay guys take the gains we have made for granted and are more apathetic about elections.

    I'd love to be wrong about this.

    [/q

    I've never missed an election either, voting absentee when living abroad.

    However, having served as an elected official in DC, I found that unless there was a specific issue on the ballot that could either help or hurt any given demographic (gay, ethnic, religious) we constantly fought apathy at the polls across the board.

    Many of the younger gays today are ignorant of the struggles of the 60's, 70's and 80's which laid the groundwork for discussion today of issues important to the gay community such as civil union/marriage, the need to eliminate DADT, etc. I feel that it is incumbent upon those of us who were in the battles to stay in front and educate those who have followed so that we don't find ourselves being marginalized by the Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks of this world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 10:49 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    lissenup saidNY state has been in crisis for a while and needs strong leadership, but I don't want to cut good programs to balance the budget.


    Then look at those state programs and ask yourself, "Is this something that the state government should be doing?"

    It might be nice, a.k.a. "a good program" to provide _____________, but is it something that the state really should be involved in?



    Oh, but there is never something the state shouldn't be involved in. You should realize that by now. ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 11:12 PM GMT
    I'm 22 years old and this will be my third time visiting the polls.
  • BizzQuik

    Posts: 116

    Oct 19, 2010 11:17 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie said
    JAKEBENSON saidI think part of the reason youth don't vote is that the process to register entails methods that are familiar to older people (does not require internet), and unfamiliar to younger people (does not care if cannot do via internet or phone).


    In Oregon you can register via their website and youth numbers are still shit. I find that plenty of youth are, like, totally all about voting and stuff. They will gladly register but getting them to actually vote is tough.


    Zombie this is brand new to Oregon this year. Just 2 years ago I had to mail in a registration to change my party. It is so nice to be able to do it online.

    I am 24 and have voted in all elections but one since I turned 18. I only missed one because I was abroad and forgot to register as an absentee. I think the rest of the nation should go to the mail in ballots like Oregon does. We get somewhat higher numbers than other states. I feel that is from being able to vote at home. I got my ballot today and it is already stamped and ready to send back. I knew who I support and knew it wouldn't change before the elections so why wait.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 11:19 PM GMT
    As someone who is very politically-oriented, I can honestly say that I have given up with the voting process, and I will no longer vote in any elections in my country unless I am inspired to do so by someone who is worthy of my vote.

    Voting is important to democracy, yes. But democracy is much more than the right to vote. In the West, we are indoctrinated with the idea that democracy means voting. However, voting between two competing factions of elites is not democratic nor does it embody any actual realities of a democratic system. Until there are candidates who do not represent alternative factions of elites, voting is totally irrelevant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 11:27 PM GMT
    I only vote with a brick.

    I only consider a democracy a system where I actually get to influence what's being done. Going to the polls is nice and stuff, but I'd very much prefer to be in a position where I can influence legislation than just choosing someone to make my decisions for me. Of course this is too complex to do on a massive scale, so bring governance down to the local level and bollocks to the nation state!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 11:28 PM GMT
    MeOhMy saidAs someone who is very politically-oriented, I can honestly say that I have given up with the voting process, and I will no longer vote in any elections in my country unless I am inspired to do so by someone who is worthy of my vote.

    Voting is important to democracy, yes. But democracy is much more than the right to vote. In the West, we are indoctrinated with the idea that democracy means voting. However, voting between two competing factions of elites is not democratic nor does it embody any actual realities of a democratic system. Until there are candidates who do not represent alternative factions of elites, voting is totally irrelevant.



    Agreed, but do you think that even Canada gives you not enough choice? I personally think Iggy is rather sympathetic, and even though I'm not in his camp by any standards, I'd vote for Angry Jack just cause of the way the guy brightens up my day watching the news.

    Back in my home country we have between 13 and 17 parties in the national elections - and even then, it's just different tentacles of the same octopus fighting over whatever cookie is on the table.

    Having said that, yea, the US is far far away from being a functional democracy, but it seems that people don't care. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what's wrong down there, yet still everybody is sooo focused on the R vs. D thing. Or can only Americans be so inward focused that they don't realize that they're the odd man out in the whole democratic world, while the rest of us throw our hands up in the air and wonder how they can be so dysfunctional?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 11:30 PM GMT
    Fountains saidI only vote with a brick.

    I only consider a democracy a system where I actually get to influence what's being done. Going to the polls is nice and stuff, but I'd very much prefer to be in a position where I can influence legislation than just choosing someone to make my decisions for me. Of course this is too complex to do on a massive scale, so bring governance down to the local level and bollocks to the nation state!



    Not necessarily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 11:33 PM GMT
    Fountains saidI only vote with a brick.

    I only consider a democracy a system where I actually get to influence what's being done. Going to the polls is nice and stuff, but I'd very much prefer to be in a position where I can influence legislation than just choosing someone to make my decisions for me. Of course this is too complex to do on a massive scale, so bring governance down to the local level and bollocks to the nation state!


    Agreed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 11:44 PM GMT
    Tazo995 said
    Fountains saidI only vote with a brick.

    I only consider a democracy a system where I actually get to influence what's being done. Going to the polls is nice and stuff, but I'd very much prefer to be in a position where I can influence legislation than just choosing someone to make my decisions for me. Of course this is too complex to do on a massive scale, so bring governance down to the local level and bollocks to the nation state!



    Not necessarily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland


    I hate disagreeing with cute boys, but Switzerland can work that way because it's population is only slightly bigger than the greater Toronto area. Regardless, I think the nation state is a stupid idea to begin with and it's history is rooted in the elites of a society seeking to consolidate power and effectively control capital. The idea that I have more to do with someone from Vancouver than someone in Buffalo, NY simply by virtue of the person from Vancouver being a Canadian and the other being an American is nonsense.

    Also, Re: social services.

    My answer: Cut the police, cut military spending, fire the CEOs/bosses, dissolve all corporations, and let people organize for themselves. Let's cut gov't spending by making it irrelevant to human needs.

    /end anarchist tirade.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 11:46 PM GMT
    Fountains said
    Tazo995 said
    Fountains saidI only vote with a brick.

    I only consider a democracy a system where I actually get to influence what's being done. Going to the polls is nice and stuff, but I'd very much prefer to be in a position where I can influence legislation than just choosing someone to make my decisions for me. Of course this is too complex to do on a massive scale, so bring governance down to the local level and bollocks to the nation state!



    Not necessarily: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland


    I hate disagreeing with cute boys, but Switzerland can work that way because it's population is only slightly bigger than the greater Toronto area. Regardless, I think the nation state is a stupid idea to begin with and it's history is rooted in the elites of a society seeking to consolidate power and effectively control capital. The idea that I have more to do with someone from Vancouver than someone in Buffalo, NY simply by virtue of the person from Vancouver being a Canadian and the other being an American is nonsense.

    Also, Re: social services.

    My answer: Cut the police, cut military spending, fire the CEOs/bosses, dissolve all corporations, and let people organize for themselves. Let's cut gov't spending by making it irrelevant to human needs.

    /end anarchist tirade.


    A man after my own heart.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2010 11:48 PM GMT
    Let's get our asses out there and vote!