Did YOU vote?

ZHawke wrote: Here's another article that goes to the issue of voting:

www.attn.com/stories/316/so-2014-was-wor...ampaign=voterholiday

I've heard that "not voting" is actually "voting" when looking at it from the perspective "you get what you don't vote for".

Fascinating "TED" talk video embedded in the article

From the opinion linked to above:

As of 2011, only 19 states include civic learning in their state assessments, and only ten percent of eighth graders understood our Government’s system of checks and balances.

Hard to hold 8th graders accountable for knowledge our current president also lacks IMNTHBO . . .

There is a reason that civics have all but disappeared from our institutions of public education. It's hard to "progressively" undermine the Constitution if the population understands what it contains.

PrintSmith wrote:
There is a reason that civics have all but disappeared from our institutions of public education. It's hard to "progressively" undermine the Constitution if the population understands what it contains.

Bringing this topic back into the overall discussion, one of the things I find particularly interesting regarding voter turnout is the alleged perception that people don't think their votes count for much, so they choose not to exercise this privilege some in other nations don't enjoy.

I believe part of the problem rests with Gerrymandering. Combine that with the efforts going on to reform the Electoral College process, and this nation toys with a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.

This article helps shed some light on the issue:

www.salon.com/2014/12/06/now_theyre_tryi...tea_party_president/

ZHawke wrote: Bringing this topic back into the overall discussion, one of the things I find particularly interesting regarding voter turnout is the alleged perception that people don't think their votes count for much, so they choose not to exercise this privilege some in other nations don't enjoy.

I believe part of the problem rests with Gerrymandering. Combine that with the efforts going on to reform the Electoral College process, and this nation toys with a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.

This article helps shed some light on the issue:

www.salon.com/2014/12/06/now_theyre_tryi...tea_party_president/

LOL. The author not only got to use Tea Party in a sentence, he made it the title.

BlazerBob wrote: LOL. The author not only got to use Tea Party in a sentence, he made it the title.

LOL. So dismiss it out of hand because Tea Party is used? Did you even read the article? If you'd like, I can quote from it, I can share embedded links in it, I can basically do the very same things you quite often do when you post from ridiculous conservative rags, too. Come on, BlazerBob. Just because you don't like anything that doesn't glorify the Tea Party doesn't mean they don't have merit.

ZHawke wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: LOL. The author not only got to use Tea Party in a sentence, he made it the title.

LOL. So dismiss it out of hand because Tea Party is used? Did you even read the article? If you'd like, I can quote from it, I can share embedded links in it, I can basically do the very same things you quite often do when you post from ridiculous conservative rags, too. Come on, BlazerBob. Just because you don't like anything that doesn't glorify the Tea Party doesn't mean they don't have merit.

No, but it was a good laugh line. I also enjoyed the "demented GOP". I gave it the attention it deserved. The author is delusional. See the line below. The r's won so badly last month that they are so desperate to win they will destroy our country as we know it.

Isn't that about what that says.

" The buzz faded rather quickly, but now, post-midterm elections, it seems to be staging a modest comeback—and the GOP’s sheer desperation means it would be foolish to ignore this ongoing threat to our democracy."

Here is the larger context. Can you define a different rational interpretation.

"Republicans have been fiddling with various Electoral College schemes since at least 2011 (in Michigan and Pennsylvania), with an upsurge of interest in early 2013, following Romney’s disappointing loss. “How Romney Could Have Won: A changed system would mean changed results” was the title of a January 2013 National Review story, capturing the mood at the time. Romney needn’t have won a single additional popular vote, you see. Just divvy up Electoral College votes by congressional district, and voilà! President, President Romney, Mr. 47 Percent! “[F]or those frustrated over 2012’s results,” the story concluded, “it might be worth thinking about whether it’s time to overhaul the system itself.”

The buzz faded rather quickly, but now, post-midterm elections, it seems to be staging a modest comeback—and the GOP’s sheer desperation means it would be foolish to ignore this ongoing threat to our democracy. Renewed talk of rewrite schemes actually began even before the midterm election, according to a late-October story by Michigan political columnist Susan J. Demas, and a watered-down scheme emerged after the election, she reported, which would give most of the electoral votes to the statewide winner, but give some to the loser as well. “It’s like a participation trophy in pre-school tee-ball,” Demas wrote, “only Michigan is trying to build up the self-esteem of Republican wannabe leaders of the free world.”

I disagree totally with the "author is delusional" assertion. Again, embedded links to sources that support his posits. The Republican party won the midterms basically because of extremely low voter turnout and GOP favored Gerrymandering. Disprove that, and I'll give your post credit where credit is due. The 2016 presidential election could very well be determined by a concerted effort on the part of GOP Gerrymandering and "massaging" of the Electoral College. That, to me, isn't how our elections are supposed to work.

ZHawke wrote: I disagree totally with the "author is delusional" assertion. Again, embedded links to sources that support his posits. The Republican party won the midterms basically because of extremely low voter turnout and GOP favored Gerrymandering. Disprove that, and I'll give your post credit where credit is due. The 2016 presidential election could very well be determined by a concerted effort on the part of GOP Gerrymandering and "massaging" of the Electoral College. That, to me, isn't how our elections are supposed to work.

Nothing will be gerrymandered or massaged between now and the election.

I have no interest in disproving anything in the piece. I hope the democrats spend time and money fighting the demented GOP. I hope they continue to believe that the reason they lost so much in November is because they were not liberal enough and did not run on all of their successful policies of the last six years.

As a point of interest this is going around liberal circles. If true why did not the d's run on and brag of all their success.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1525747_10152522115286545_2591387745240735645_n.png?oh=0bf2c83160630f05af43b7f3e445827c&oe=550E987E&__gda__=1427703086_61770ed08e77cfd0d6a88fdfce057fe5

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10848024_748265635266493_8104833565499681201_n.png?oh=f8b27f2643f91156cc28e275f59a2306&oe=54FAD25F&__gda__=1426121091_4c8f37cbbac718f33b66a222d89cbd3f

Don't know why those images did not embed. They put very positive spins of this administration.

BlazerBob wrote: Nothing will be gerrymandered or massaged between now and the election.

I have no interest in disproving anything in the piece. I hope the democrats spend time and money fighting the demented GOP. I hope they continue to believe that the reason they lost so much in November is because they were not liberal enough and did not run on all of their successful policies of the last six years.

As a point of interest this is going around liberal circles. If true why did not the d's run on and brag of all their success.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1525747_10152522115286545_2591387745240735645_n.png?oh=0bf2c83160630f05af43b7f3e445827c&oe=550E987E&__gda__=1427703086_61770ed08e77cfd0d6a88fdfce057fe5

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10848024_748265635266493_8104833565499681201_n.png?oh=f8b27f2643f91156cc28e275f59a2306&oe=54FAD25F&__gda__=1426121091_4c8f37cbbac718f33b66a222d89cbd3f

Don't know why those images did not embed. They put very positive spins of this administration.

If you have no interest in disproving anything in the piece, then I have no interest in answering your question at the end of your post.

The fact is there may not be gerrymandering and massaging that will affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Even the author concedes that. However, those two issues are being worked on as we speak for the long term. Those long term effects are what need to be addressed and stopped.

No worries. It was rhetorical.