WyoNation.com

Should we make it mandatory that if you are over 18 years old, you must vote? I get that it sounds very "un-American", but I wonder how that would change politics. I feel that right now, with low turnout, the crazies are running the show because middle of the road people have given up.

Maybe we should also consider making voting more accessible with technology? I don't know. Just rambling, but I feel the lack of interest in who is running our country is a major problem. Something needs to be done.

In my opinion, low turnout is not the major issue. Lack of self education on the candidates and their platforms is what worries me.

In fact, I would argue that if you aren't educated on the various candidates, then you have a duty NOT to vote. I've toyed with idea of including a short questionaire during the voting process that could potentially weed out those voters who are not educated and just marking every candidate with a "R" or "D" next to their name. Unfortunately, I've spoken with a large number of people who do just that. Their justification is typically that they identify with the Republican or Democratic general platform and that it isn't important to know the nitty gritty of each candidates stances.

It's a very complex issue that, obviously, has no simple answer.

Party line voting gets us in a lot of trouble. Look at the Cindy Hill debacle, for example. I know that she has supporters, but by and large her tenure was a disaster. It could have well been avoided if people would have looked into her background and decided for themselves whether or not she was the right candidate for their vote instead of just checking the box for the party she was running on.

I'm tired of voting. I'm tired of the poop they throw around about each other and so much more. It's hard to find a good enough politician to vote for because no one seems to really represent me fully enough.
I'm liberal on some things and conservative on other topics that may confuse others.
I voted last week for candidates representing 4 different parties. I knew that the Independent and Green parties candidates didn't stand a chance to win but I voted for the ones who I thought were the best to represent me.

No, I do not believe that we should require voting.

I quit voting a while ago, I also except what the outcome is and don't complain about it but something I have come to realize is politicians are going to tell you what you want to hear and rarely if ever follow through on promises.

It's just a big political popularity contest to get into fat wallets they could care less what people that aren't donating to their campaign say think or do.

alyssa wrote:I'm tired of voting. I'm tired of the poop they throw around about each other and so much more. It's hard to find a good enough politician to vote for because no one seems to really represent me fully enough.
I'm liberal on some things and conservative on other topics that may confuse others.
I voted last week for candidates representing 4 different parties. I knew that the Independent and Green parties candidates didn't stand a chance to win but I voted for the ones who I thought were the best to represent me.

No, I do not believe that we should require voting.

The whole election process has gone to hell in a hand basket. With all the big money being spent on candidates and huge amounts of money being spent on ads, some candidates don't have a chance to win.

WYCowboy wrote:

alyssa wrote:I'm tired of voting. I'm tired of the poop they throw around about each other and so much more. It's hard to find a good enough politician to vote for because no one seems to really represent me fully enough.
I'm liberal on some things and conservative on other topics that may confuse others.
I voted last week for candidates representing 4 different parties. I knew that the Independent and Green parties candidates didn't stand a chance to win but I voted for the ones who I thought were the best to represent me.

No, I do not believe that we should require voting.

The whole election process has gone to hell in a hand basket. With all the big money being spent on candidates and huge amounts of money being spent on ads, some candidates don't have a chance to win.

Money wasted.

There are so many disconnects, we cannot even imagine to count them.

The primary problem starts with education. I read somewhere (WSJ maybe) a few years ago, the average voter has a 7th grade education. That says a lot.

Make election day a national holiday or move it to a Saturday or Sunday. That might help.

Two things that I think would go a long ways would be a balanced budget amendment. The only exception being surplus put into savings or we could borrow but would require a super majority (I don't know, maybe 75% or something). That would cover both emergencies and surpluses.

We need campaign reform first and foremost. There is no question that candidate loyalty is to the Party first and Constituents second. They have become salesmen of Party agenda rather than problem solvers. This has to end. The Parties can't continue to essentially win local elections.

I have no problem spending money and am not some extreme wacko, but I also think we need better controls on why that money is spent. Our system is eroding very quickly. Something has to change.

A little late to the party, but there's a simple solution to most of this:

Term limits.

Across the board, there should be term limits. Two or three terms in a particular office is more than enough for any one person. Our system wasn't built for career politicians, it was built for statesmen. People who would go to the elected office - federal, state, county, whatever - do the best job they can for the people they represent, and then go back home and let someone else do the job. We lost that a long time ago, when corporations realized they wouldn't have much influence over a true statesman.

Term limits gets rid of the most of the money in politics, because there's no need to raise a bajillion dollars for a re-election campaign every 2 or 4 or 6 years. Term limits give the candidates some motivation to get a job done before they're out. Term limits might help voters to become at least a little informed, because they couldn't just vote for the same name their parents did. And term limits would hopefully give the people reason to believe in the system again. Term limits help get our system to work the way it's supposed to.

We term-limited the president with the 22nd amendment in 1951, but we need to take that step with Congress. 2 or 3 terms in the house (4-6 years), and 2 in the Senate (12 years) are more than enough for any one person.

Term limits baby. It's long overdue.

GO POKES!

wellpoke wrote:A little late to the party, but there's a simple solution to most of this:

Term limits.

Across the board, there should be term limits. Two or three terms in a particular office is more than enough for any one person. Our system wasn't built for career politicians, it was built for statesmen. People who would go to the elected office - federal, state, county, whatever - do the best job they can for the people they represent, and then go back home and let someone else do the job. We lost that a long time ago, when corporations realized they wouldn't have much influence over a true statesman.

Term limits gets rid of the most of the money in politics, because there's no need to raise a bajillion dollars for a re-election campaign every 2 or 4 or 6 years. Term limits give the candidates some motivation to get a job done before they're out. Term limits might help voters to become at least a little informed, because they couldn't just vote for the same name their parents did. And term limits would hopefully give the people reason to believe in the system again. Term limits help get our system to work the way it's supposed to.

We term-limited the president with the 22nd amendment in 1951, but we need to take that step with Congress. 2 or 3 terms in the house (4-6 years), and 2 in the Senate (12 years) are more than enough for any one person.

Term limits baby. It's long overdue.

GO POKES!

I think you are right, but we need to quit giving a lifelong pension to a person who is only in for one term.

WYCowboy wrote: but we need to quit giving a lifelong pension to a person who is only in for one term.

Don't think they do. Members of Congress are vested at five years (like any federal employee), and not eligible until they reach a certain age with a certain amount of service.

But I get your point. Having a pension system is an incentive - albeit a small one compared to all the other ways they can earn cash - for an elected official to try to stay in office. Term limits would probably do away with the pension system for Congress though. They didn't put it in until 1946, when our current "career politician" system was already well entrenched.

And for the record... no, we should NOT require voting. Defeats the purpose.

GO POKES!

wellpoke wrote:

WYCowboy wrote: but we need to quit giving a lifelong pension to a person who is only in for one term.

Don't think they do. Members of Congress are vested at five years (like any federal employee), and not eligible until they reach a certain age with a certain amount of service.

But I get your point. Having a pension system is an incentive - albeit a small one compared to all the other ways they can earn cash - for an elected official to try to stay in office. Term limits would probably do away with the pension system for Congress though. They didn't put it in until 1946, when our current "career politician" system was already well entrenched.

And for the record... no, we should NOT require voting. Defeats the purpose.

GO POKES!

At which point it would most likely be between, as South Park put it so well, a giant douche and a turd sandwich, which is usually ends up being with having to choose between the lesser of 2 really bad choices.

wellpoke wrote:At which point it would most likely be between, as South Park put it so well, a giant douche and a turd sandwich, which is usually ends up being with having to choose between the lesser of 2 really bad choices.

Maybe. But it would be a new giant douche or a new turd sandwich. New is always better, right?

GO POKES!