Or move to a state like Washington, where anyone can vote absentee for any reason. I filled out my ballot on Friday in my own home, using the voters’ guide and the internet for research, and ceremoniously drove 3 blocks to the post office on Saturday to mail it.
I agree that discouraging people from voting is wrong. However, I really do think some people are too lazy to expend the effort to fully comprehend and research issues as opposed to accepting what they read in the newspaper, hear on the radio, and see on the news at face value as if it were the unvarnished truth. I see it all the time. You only have to hear someone parroting misrepresentations and biased opinion as fact to understand that they’re not doing their homework.
It’s true that the opportunity to vote is a great aspect of democracy. We all deserve the opportunity to have a say in our government. It’s just that I don’t think we should waste that. Heck, you might as well pat the guy on the back who shows up and votes for a guy because the only name he recognized on the ballot was the one he saw on the many yardsigns imploring him to Elect Joe Schmoe! (Well, he must be great because everyone else is voting for him.)
We have a responsibility to get informed, not just show up and pull the lever. In order to vote smart you have to be work for it. That means doing the research and determining fact from fiction. Otherwise, if you pull the lever based someone else’s opinion you took at face value, you’re only usurping your power. When you accept what someone tells you without discovering for yourself its accuracy and relevence, you deserve to be deluded. But you do a disservice to your fellow citizens when you vote deluded and uninformed.
In other words, what MrFantsyPants said.
Sheesh! A day late and a dollar short again! :smack:
From the first quote, reiterated in the title of the thread.
“Stay home,” said Stone. “It doesn’t matter who you’re gonna vote for. If you really don’t know who you’re gonna vote for, or are uninformed, or haven’t really thought about it? Just stay home.”
No one thinks he is uninformed or believe he hasn’t sufficiently thought out his vote. Thus it’s pointless to tell them to stay home. People who are undecided aren’t necessarily underinformed, though I find it confusing that people are still undecided and I don’t think it’s a sign that they’re well-informed. So, as they always do, Stone and Parker are sneering at people who try to take themselves seriously even for a second and who think the world might be a little complicated. Even if it’s funny, this is crappy satire. In other words, what Rubystreak said, especially the last paragraph. 
[QUOTE=Cinnamon Girl]
I agree that discouraging people from voting is wrong. However, I really do think some people are too lazy to expend the effort to fully comprehend and research issues as opposed to accepting what they read in the newspaper, hear on the radio, and see on the news at face value as if it were the unvarnished truth. I see it all the time. You only have to hear someone parroting misrepresentations and biased opinion as fact to understand that they’re not doing their homework.
[quote]
What do you mean by “fully comprehend”? Do you think you fully comprehend all the issues? I highly doubt that you do. I know I don’t. And there are some issues I just don’t give a damn about. There’s also this crazy phenomenon of people thinking that anyone who disagrees with them is uninformed and ignorant. Labeling people as uninformed is a dangerous appellation IMO, because it could just as easily be leveled at you. Or our present president, who I’m sure no one will seriously assert shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Those people “parroting misrepresentations” probably think you’re doing the same thing. They might even be right. There are the facts, and then there’s the spin put on the facts, and then there’s just subjective opinion, and it’s very hard to navigate through all that and come out with some Truth and Vital Information. A lot of it is opinion and personal interpretation. I’m wary of labeling people as clueless repeaters of lies when in some sense, aren’t we all?
Some people, for instance, think it was a good idea for us to invade Iraq. They think Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and that we and the world are safer without him. Can you prove that we’re not safer? I’m sure you could offer some facts, and the other side could too. Then they could give evidence that he was a dangerous and malignant source of future harm, and you could rebut. In the end, it does come down to your perception of Hussein and how you feel now, considering the results of our invasion. There is no absolute right or wrong here, just a set of priorities and a way of looking at the world. I may like my priorities better, and think those who disagree are wacked out, but that doesn’t mean they’re uninformed and shouldn’t vote.
Honestly, seriously, do you think anyone does that? I mean, registers, then takes time out of his day to stand in line, sign the book, and vote, based only on signs they see in the street? I doubt it. I think most people know about the issues closest to their heart and they’d have to be living under a rock not to know about the highlights of our foreign policy of late, the candidates’ positions on abortion, gay marriage, etc. Those issues are everywhere and most people know where their candidate stands. Consequently, they are making a choice based on what they care about and who they think is going to take care of that for them. Just because they don’t agree with you, or believe what they read in the news, or see on TV, doesn’t mean they’re uninformed. It means they are using the information at hand to make a choice. You can’t ask more than that.
Do you folks really think people need to spend hours doing original research on the issues, candidates, propositions, etc? Is reading the paper and watching the news enough for you? I’m not sure what exactly you want from the American people.
No you don’t. That’s the beauty of it. All the work you have to do is sign up and show up, and I for one think that’s grand.
Hey, good luck with that. I think it’s not quite so clear cut as fact v. fiction. I think a lot of it is my priorties v. your prioritie, which no amount of research will change.
First of all, one can’t usurp one’s own power. Second, do you really think people don’t vote based on what’s relevant to them? Sure they do. It just might not be relevant to you, or you might not value what they value. That doesn’t make them uninformed or deluded. They just don’t agree with you.
I think tacking on the whole “except people like Stone who think that people who disagree with them are stupid and should be looked down upon” is reading a little too much into an otherwise flippant comment here. I still haven’t figured out how in the world you came to the conclusion that Matt Stone is looking down at the average voter by what he said.
Maybe my internal Matt Stone-voice has a different tone of voice than yours.
I didn’t say the average voter. Most voters have made up their minds by now. But a lot of them haven’t. How did they know Matt Stone had set a time limit, which it sounds like he has- if you haven’t made up your mind by [some point in time], you’re stupid and you should stay home?
iampunha’s fan club has uniforms?
What in the world made you think “ayem” was a word?
It’s a fairly common way of saying AM. I’m surprised you haven’t seen it before.
What Rubystreak said. “Ayem” is used (as far as I’ve seen) as a facetious way of pronouncing “AM”.
But it’s so POINTLESS! Yes, it’s a good way of PRONOUNCING it, but to SPELL it with two extra letters that do not change the meaning or pronunciation one iota, and making it appear that you are attempting to make up a word, seems rather dumb. (And I don’t mean YOU seem rather dumb for using it!! I just mean the concept, if you understand what I’m saying.) I’ve never seen it before, and I rather hope it doesn’t catch on very much.
I dunno . . . I sorta like the idea of “pee em.”
:mounts soapbox: Mandatory voting is as an integral and missing aspect of our social contract, something we are all born into. Not voting is lazy and irresponsible. You have everything to lose!
Granted, ‘fully comprehend’ is often a stretch. I probably shouldn’t have used such an expansive term. But I have a much better comprehension when I actually spend some time learning more about an issue and weighing both sides. As I mentioned earlier, referenda are usually poorly written, even sometimes slanted, on the ballot and if you don’t take the time to understand what the initiative is trying to accomplish, you can end up voting differently than you would if you knew any better.
Then don’t cast a vote on those issues. As for the candidates, if you don’t care about the office, don’t vote for anyone. Or pick the candidate that most represents your interests after doing some research. I don’t really care who the coroner is, so should I just pick a name? No, I just don’t ‘pull any lever.’
Now where did I say that? Really, I don’t believe that anyone voting for Bush is uninformed. Hopelessly oblivious to issues I see as relevant, maybe. And, of course, one could say the same of me. But I never said people who disagree with me shouldn’t vote. I said people who don’t come to their own conclusions after spending some precious brain cells evaluating the issues or the candidate independently of rhetoric and bias should refrain from voting. Voluntarily. Yes, it is possible to say to oneself, “Hey, I don’t really know enough about that, so I’m not going to vote on that.” If I voted solely on supposition, I’d never vote for a Republican coroner. That’d be wrong.
So what of it? Maybe we are all clueless repeaters of lies. We should be called on it when we are. Isn’t that why we’re here trying to fight ignorance? You got a problem with that? It doesn’t bother you that some people choose to ignore the opportunity to factfind because it’s so much easier to be force-fed their ideas? Yes, those people exist.
Nope, my perception of Hussein is meaningless as to whom I vote for because I ain’t voting for Hussein. Whether I agree or disagree with whether he was dangerous is only one very small aspect of the big picture. You see, simplifying like this is part of the problem. Again, I don’t presume to think that someone who supports the war is ignorant. But I do regard individuals who don’t really even consider other perspectives to an issue woefully uninformed. Hell, you don’t have to agree. You don’t have to even understand the other POV all that well. But at least make the effort, fer cryin’ out loud. Break out of your little box. Expand your horizons. Then, I say, vote.
Uh, yeah I do. Particularly with the local issues and offices. There are so many choices to make that day and we’re all so concerned about the big issues and offices that many people, even educated, well-meaning people run out of time or desire to get some info on everything on the ballot. Maybe they stick to those they’re really concerned about. So instead of not voting on the ones they know nothing about, they pick any name of the one most likely to win (i.e., most signs) so their vote ‘counts.’ Because, you know, it’s so damn important to vote. Yes, I’m certain people do this. What other purpose does the candidate or organization have to distribute signs telling people to vote their man/issue? Name recognition, buddy. Ah, the power of (not-so-)subtle reminder. It’s not like this tactic is that unheard of.
I think you’re kidding yourself. There’s certainly a significant substrata of voters who are only partially informed or are sucked in by media bias. I think this election in particular being so contentious, is a perfect of example of emotion overriding intellect. Once it’s decided that ‘Bush is evil’ or ‘Kerry is a pansy’, the issues no longer matter. The veracity and relevance of what is spewed no longer matter. It’s, ‘us against them.’ And that’s just the big election. What of the little local ones? You haven’t been so caught up in the presidential election that you’ve maybe shirked a bit on researching local issues and candidates? Do you know everything you - even think you - need to know about every issue and candidate on your district’s ballot? If you do, I’m surprised. I doubt most people do.
I’ve got no problem with that. As long as they can accept when their choice is devoid of relevant information to cast an informed vote.
Nope, that’s the least I can ask for.
Yes. I see it as responsibility.
Barely. Are you getting both sides of the issue from biased sources? Are you evaluating that info via unbiased sources? They do exist, ya know. Facts are not as hard to come by as everyone seems to think.
A little more effort and a little less platitude.
Read my statement again. See the bolded word? Care to restate or do you really think just signing a form and showing up is indicative of intelligence?
Really, and you’re pretty certain that everything you hear in this campaign relative to your priorities is the God’s honest truth? Wow, I wish I could be so impervious to skepticism. Why are you here? Seriously.
Ya got me here. Evidently I forgot the meaning of usurp. :smack: How’s this instead:
Otherwise, if you pull the lever based someone else’s opinion you took at face value, you’re only relegating your power. In other words, you are just a tool, a means to an end.
Yes, I do because they don’t know enough about how their vote is relevant to them. Really, would we be having this discussion about the intent to confer marriage rights to gays while constitutionally defining the meaning of marriage to exclude them, for example? I’m not talking about just the pres. race either, so don’t tell me there are other relevant issues in choosing a president. I know that. I am talking about state amendments and local initiatives. Most people will vote on it because they feel its relevant to them. But what’s the relevance, I ask? We’re voting on giving people rights, not taking yours away. We’re voting on defining marriage to exclude people, not to make your marriage any more sacred than you can make it. I’m married. I’m not gay. How is this relevant in my life? The only relevance is that I have to make a decision or refrain from the vote. Yes, I’m voting my conscience, but it is something that I’ve done a lot of research on. I’ve made every effort to understand both sides of the issue. My vote is not going to represent just a knee-jerk reaction seeped in emotion.
That is all I’m asking of our electorate.
Come on, Cinnamon Girl, I’d need a sandwich to get through a post that long.
Let’s try to keep it around 5 column inches or so.
Sorry 'bout that. Didn’t realize I was ranting. :smack: I wouldn’t read it either.
Carry on.
OTOH, it does kind of prove the point about soundbites, ya think?