End the voting scam

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Under the system I suggested, EVERYONE would be given the option to participate or not and the would not be able to lie.

And the vast majority would not participate and would still see people lying at exit polls. Problem not solved.

We wouldn't need exit polls in a voluntary open vote system.

"Good plans are realistic and implementable. This one has no chance unless we wake up in North Korea."

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy. There's no reason for me to engage in a fallacious debate.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

No.

You are bound and determined, it seems, to not see the very dark aspect of this.

I've been involved in the process from the other side of it. As a delegate at local, and state levels...I sat and listened to people, the movers and the shakers, discuss how to influence particular sets of voters. ...and this is without knowing names.

Can you imagine the sordid crap that would ensue if your idea came to fruition? Volunteer or otherwise, voter intimidation/coercion would become rife.

No, this is a bad idea. Doesn't mean you're stupid, I know better than to think that. But in this instance I think you're wrong.

Do away with exit polling, period.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
We wouldn't need exit polls in a voluntary open vote system.

Yeah, you would because you would have, at best, single digit participation. And I think I am being generous.

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy. There's no reason for me to engage in a fallacious debate.

There is nothing fallacious about the difference between pie and the sky and realism.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
THEN DON'T VOLUNTEER TO VOTE OPENLY.

Wow.

And because I, and the vast majority of people, will not the fact that a few people like yourself would decide to do it makes it pointless as a measurable commodity.

In your opinion. You cannot possibly claim to speak for the vast majority -- unless your sample size is one other person taking your side of this debate on this thread.

And if that's the case, you undermine your argument about polling and sample sizes.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
In your opinion. You cannot possibly claim to speak for the vast majority -- unless your sample size is one other person taking your side of this debate on this thread.

I actually do claim to speak for the vast majority and if you were to sample posters here you would find you are in a distinct minority.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
We wouldn't need exit polls in a voluntary open vote system.

Yeah, you would because you would have, at best, single digit participation. And I think I am being generous.

Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy. There's no reason for me to engage in a fallacious debate.

There is nothing fallacious about the difference between pie and the sky and realism.

I think you think too highly of your own opinion.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I think you think too highly of your own opinion.

My opinion is borne out by your own comments that this would not be implementable.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
In your opinion. You cannot possibly claim to speak for the vast majority -- unless your sample size is one other person taking your side of this debate on this thread.

I actually do claim to speak for the vast majority and if you were to sample posters here you would find you are in a distinct minority.

Oh. Ok.

Go ahead and tell me who will win in November, too, because apparently you know how the majority feels.

Why even have a vote? I am sure everyone is going to vote just like you.

This debate has lost all substance now. You want to decide for everyone and everyone must agree with you -- d'uh. You just know it's true though. I get it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Go ahead and tell me who will win in November, too, because apparently you know how the majority feels.

We are talking about open/closed voting, not prognosticating elections. But you knew that already.

a reply to: Apollumi

In local elections, state elections, with the kind of money that gets thrown around?

You damn betcha some of those trailer living folks are going to get visited/intimidated/bribed. They do now, how bad do you think it'll get if your past voting history is known?

You think politics are corrupt now? You ain't seen nothing yet were this implemented.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No.

You are bound and determined, it seems, to not see the very dark aspect of this.

I've been involved in the process from the other side of it. As a delegate at local, and state levels...I sat and listened to people, the movers and the shakers, discuss how to influence particular sets of voters. ...and this is without knowing names.

But isn't this the point of transparency. Wouldn't it be nice for people to be "conscious" of this? It's one reason I like trump. He just blurts stuff out. Most people would be quiet, not say anything to rock the boat. But Trump, just pours it out. So this type of thing where you vocalized what is going on is wonderful I think.

originally posted by: seagull
You are bound and determined, it seems, to not see the very dark aspect of this.

I've been involved in the process from the other side of it. As a delegate at local, and state levels...I sat and listened to people, the movers and the shakers, discuss how to influence particular sets of voters. ...and this is without knowing names.

Can you imagine the sordid crap that would ensue if your idea came to fruition? Volunteer or otherwise, voter intimidation/coercion would become rife.

You need to tell me how anything would change for voters who decide to cast a private vote. How would my choice to cast an open vote cause someone who cast a private vote to be intimidated or coerced?

People announce who they vote for on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, on TV and it does not lead to the coercion and intimidation of people who keep their vote private.

You're leaping to conclusions without providing me your logic. I can't just accept that you are correct without some logic to follow.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

We are talking about you assuming the "vast majority' agrees with you based on no evidence whatsoever.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
We are talking about you assuming the "vast majority' agrees with you based on no evidence whatsoever.

Considering you want open voting but still admit it is not implementable I feel pretty confident the majority agrees with me that it is not workable and is unwanted.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

People announce who they vote for on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, on TV and it does not lead to the coercion and intimidation of people who keep their vote private.

You're equating "liking" a FB post to voting in an election that decides the fate of a country, or where tax money may go in the future? Really?

You can not have some votes private, some not. They either all are or none are. At the whim of some dufus in city hall who doesn't like me for some odd reason, suddenly my voting record for the past two or three decades suddenly becomes a matter of public record...oh, yeah, that's nice.

Or said dufus, who is being paid by whomever to get him that information, does so... Suddenly people are getting cards, letters, knocks on the door. Vote this way or...

Very much like jury intimidation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
We are talking about you assuming the "vast majority' agrees with you based on no evidence whatsoever.

Considering you want open voting but still admit it is not implementable I feel pretty confident the majority agrees with me that it is not workable and is unwanted.

Please.

I never said it was not implementable. It's implementable.

What I said is that it's a move towards transparency in vote counting. And I have no confidence the elected officials in charge of enacting voter reforms would ever allow it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Please.

I never said it was not implementable. It's implementable.

Yes you did:

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Of course it won't ever happen...

What I said is that it's a move towards transparency in vote counting. And I have no confidence the elected officials in charge of enacting voter reforms would ever allow it.

The reason is irrelevant. You admitted it will never happen.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: MotherMayEye

People announce who they vote for on blogs, Facebook, Twitter, on TV and it does not lead to the coercion and intimidation of people who keep their vote private.

You're equating "liking" a FB post to voting in an election that decides the fate of a country, or where tax money may go in the future? Really?

You can not have some votes private, some not. They either all are or none are. At the whim of some dufus in city hall who doesn't like me for some odd reason, suddenly my voting record for the past two or three decades suddenly becomes a matter of public record...oh, yeah, that's nice.

Or said dufus, who is being paid by whomever to get him that information, does so... Suddenly people are getting cards, letters, knocks on the door. Vote this way or...

Very much like jury intimidation.

Why can't you have some people choose to cast an open vote while others choose not to? Because you say so? That's a poor argument and I am not buying it.

Also, don't volunteer to vote openly if that's not something you're comfortable with. I'd like to verify my vote was counted accurately. Why should your illogical, unexplainable fear keep me from that?

You have yet to explain how such a system would impact you as someone who chose to vote privately.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Please.

I never said it was not implementable. It's implementable.

Yes you did:

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Of course it won't ever happen...

What I said is that it's a move towards transparency in vote counting. And I have no confidence the elected officials in charge of enacting voter reforms would ever allow it.

The reason is irrelevant. You admitted it will never happen.

I'm sorry, I don't see where you quoted me saying it's unimplementable. Do I believe it would be allowed to happen with the corruption we have in government, at the moment? No.

But I can still advocate for such a system and believe it would be better than our current system.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I'm sorry, I don't see where you quoted me saying it's unimplementable.

I guess the words 'Of course it won't ever happen...' means something different to you.