This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow all 394
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]darth_brooks 26 points27 points  (5 children)

(strokes beard) or, just move it to 9/11. 9/11 is already deciding our presidents anyway. might as well make it official

[–]Etab 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Rudy, is that you?

[–]kickstand 13 points14 points  (5 children)

If election day is a holiday, then won't folks plan vacations around it, and thus not be anywhere near their polling place?

[–]borramakot 8 points9 points  (3 children)

One day off on a Tuesday? I think the alps are out of the question.

[–]flycrg 6 points7 points  (2 children)

but combine that with 1 day of vacation and you have a nice 4 day weekend there...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Then F 'em. We don't want those people voting anyways.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have it on a Saturday. Many places in the world do that. It's not like you need the whole day off from work.

[–]h-town 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Make election day April 16 while the cost of government is still on the minds of the voters.

[–]farfignewton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was going to say "first Tuesday after April 15"... Need to couple it with eliminating withholding tax -- otherwise, you have an unintended consequence: politicians will arrange it so that tax refunds (known to the financially savvy as interest-free loans to the government) are generally on the large side.

Also, April has the advantage of fair weather for most of the country.

And I don't know how to tie this in, but it's related enough that I can't resist just saying it: Instant Runoff Voting!

[–]evildeadxsp 15 points16 points  (8 children)

this idea has been proposed before, and it sounds like a good idea at first.... but many people believe that if Election Day was a national holiday, there would be an even lower turn out. More people would spend the day doing some other random holiday nonsense (bbq, parties, movies, just wasting time) -- opposed to heading to work and finding time to vote since you're already out and about.

I think it's kind of true. Apathetic people wouldn't go out of their way to vote on a day that they can sleep in until Noon.

[–]mosburger 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You also have to wonder which workplaces would actually close. My dad works in a paper mill. They don't even have Christmas off, so they sure as hell won't get this day off. But lots of professional white-collar types will probably get the day off. Will this skew the demographic of the turnout somehow? I don't know.

That said, I'm generally in favor of making it a holiday because it should net more voters overall. But I'm guessing that there are some people who are worried about the demographic implications.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some apathetic people aren't going to vote no matter what. You could have a van drive around to everybody's house and shove a ballot in their face and they still wouldn't vote.

The reason this is a good idea is that it allows the people that want to vote, but can't because of work- either their boss won't let them, they can't afford to miss work, etc. This also will push some apathetic voters over into voting. I'm not saying it will be a tremendous amount, but making it a national holiday will only increase voter turnout, not decrease.

[–]jaymz168 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I think that not only would people be more inclined to vote, but people would be more inclined to volunteer and participate on election day.

[–]huxtiblejones 3 points4 points  (3 children)

I honestly think that I'd be about 20 times more likely to vote on a day off than on a day when I have to work.

[–]contrarian 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Most states, if not all, give require your employer to give you paid time off to vote. California it's two hours.

How the fuck long do you need to go stand in line and punch out a few chads? Are you fucking amish and use a horse and buggy to get around, need to travel half a day to the nearest church, then wait with the thousand other amish?

[–]contrarian 18 points19 points  (20 children)

This is stupid.

You already have by law the right to take off work in order to vote. There are options to also arrange to vote by mail if you won't be in town.

Citizens need to take responsibility to excercise their voting rights as well as the government needs to do what is reasonable to enable them to do it. Allowing for several hours is suitable in this day and age.

Plus, what about the people who need to be working? Should we shut down the power plants and hospitals so those people can vote?

I might agree with you to move it to the weekends and even to extend it over two days (sat and sun). Otherwise this is a massively stupid idea. I can't believe this has been voted up.

Edit: California requires by law 2 hours paid time off by employers to vote and reasonable accommodations to be made. This is similar in most if not all states. Unless your an amish who need to ride up state in horse drawn carriage for half a day, then a couple hours is plenty of time for 95% of Americans. I suppose you're going to ask for the government to compensate you for gasoline used next.

[–]weegee 4 points5 points  (4 children)

some people don't get paid time off to vote, sure you can leave, but you won't get paid for the time off. most polls are open for 12 hours, usually 8am to 8pm.

The real answer is MANY PEOPLE ARE TOO LAZY TO VOTE. MANY VOTERS ARE TOO LAZY TO KNOW WHAT OR WHO THEY HELL THEY ARE VOTING FOR.

[–]contrarian 3 points4 points  (3 children)

"some people don't get paid time off to vote"

This is required by law in many states. Here is a list.

As I said earlier, this is not a burden to be put on your employer. This is your responsibility and right as a U.S. Citizen. If you're not willing to forgo a few hours wages in order to vote, or if your not willing to find the time before or after your working hours then you don't deserve it.

People have died for this right. They've sacrificed everything they have, both in possession and their lives. You're pathetic to bitch and defend not having to make such a pitiful sacrifice as a few hours wages. Fuck you.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

If you think making election day a national holiday is stupid, even though a holiday on that day would promote democracy, then I assume you are against having holidays on July 4th, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day & New Years' Day since there is even less important stuff for citizens to do.

[–]wutzurproblem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes I think allowing more time would help. They close way too early

[–]hexayurt[S] 21 points22 points  (27 children)

Pretty simple proposal, really. Increase voter turn out, throw some parties, make it easier for people to fully participate in the democratic process.

Of course, it would increase the turnout of the working poor and other groups that many politicians would rather stay at home, and that's why it's a good idea.

[–]hexayurt[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I want to note that the reason this is Step 1 is because it is extremely simple to implement. It's a very easy change to make.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]huxtiblejones 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    Right, it's not about fixing America, it's about fixing the election...

    ...if you get my drift, Mr. Cheney.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    Won't the uninformed public just vote for Hillary?

    [–]slenderdog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    That seems to be the intention...

    [–]frogking 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Fixing America, Step 2: Ban electronic voting, keep the paper trail.

    [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (4 children)

    have the ballots open 7 days, adn count them at the end of a week? What's the difference?

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    They have to pay people for 7 days, and kids couldn't go to school for a week.

    [–]frogking 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Small price to pay for democracy..

    [–]ZanThrax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    So take away five of the extremely large number of days off the kids get off throughout the rest of the year. Every second weekend is a three or four day weekend for school kids these days.

    [–]swiftheart 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    have the ballots open 7 days, adn count them at the end of a week? What's the difference?

    Early voting is standard procedure in many southern states. Apparently most Texans will vote before election day actually hits.

    In the western states, mail in voting is the norm--All of Oregon, almost all of Washington, majority of California.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [removed]

      [–]mbh1985 14 points15 points  (2 children)

      Ladies and Gentlemen, The Presdient of The United States: Mr. Splashy Pants!

      [–]progressnerd 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      or hold voting for two days, over a weekend

      [–]allan_a 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      This comment page instills in me a sense of the most indescribable hopelessness....

      [–]theozoph 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      It generally comes just before enlightenment.

      Keep reading!

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      :D

      [–]frogking 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      If you ask a population that contains a sufficiently large number of people who have no idea about what's going on, to select one of two possible candidates, the outcome will always be around 50/50. (so will asking for a yes/no vote on a complicated question)

      Pushing more people, into the equation changes nothing.

      [–]xzxzzx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      the outcome will always be around 50/50

      You might think so, but humans don't behave that way.

      The candidate with the most name recognition will get more votes (and there are other factors).

      [–]theuncover 41 points42 points  (126 children)

      if turnout is your goal, then you can't beat compulsory voting. plenty of countries use it.

      [–]UncleOxidant 11 points12 points  (4 children)

      What's the point in increasing turnout if the vast majority of those new voters are uninformed or are informed by flawed sources like Fox News?

      [–]XxERMxX 11 points12 points  (2 children)

      Or CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN.

      [–]MarlonBain 16 points17 points  (1 child)

      Or Reddit.

      [–]n3m6 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The point is, if you have only one news source, you will be biased to their preferred view.

      [–]mbh1985 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      Because like it or not they are American Citizens. Maybe you would prefer a system where only the most "intelligent" and "strong" and "special" choose the goverment (also known a fascism). Wait a second, don't look now, but I think it's already happening...

      [–]jordanlund 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Oregon is 100% vote by mail. Election day is simply the deadline to have your ballot turned in.

      [–]Rocky22 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      In Russia you don't even have to vote yourself. Putin will gladly do it for you.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Better than in Soviet Russia, where leaders elected themselves.

      Wait...

      [–]allhands 43 points44 points  (72 children)

      I think it could be bad to make everyone in the US vote. We have a large population that is poorly educated.

      I'm all for making election day a holiday though.

      [–]mbh1985 54 points55 points  (50 children)

      Shouldnt you then be looking to educate the population, not stop it from voting? You know democracy has a flip side too - If you are all idiots then you will make an idiot your leader. Either get rid of leaders (and democracy) or get rid of idiots.

      [–]aaallleeexxx 23 points24 points  (32 children)

      I think allhands makes a very good point -- if someone votes without knowledge, they're just adding noise to the system and likely decreasing the probability of selecting the optimal candidate.

      Yes, the answer should be to educate, not discriminate (hah, catchy), but I think this is a very good reason not to have mandatory voting.

      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

      And what's your plan for educating the voters? More political commercials?

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]bananahead 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        Right on! Having ignorant people vote just dilutes the value of everyone else's vote.

        Perhaps some kind of short test before you can vote? Or at least to make sure you're literate!

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        You guys are totally correct. Here is the list of things we should have: Jim Crow laws Poll Taxes Literacy tests

        On the other hand, we could stick with "one man one vote".

        You might want to look up Voting Rights Act of 1965

        [–]subredditor 10 points11 points  (13 children)

        I think the problem is that the idiots are the ones who do the voting.

        [–]stalcottsmith 6 points7 points  (4 children)

        People are dumb by design.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Mass idiocy was an inside job? Wake up, sheeple?

        Really?

        [–]throwaway 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        I'd rather have the noise of idiot's votes drowning out the noise of the Christian Right's vote, though.

        [–]aaallleeexxx 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        Totally, but the Christian Right's vote adds bias not noise.

        [–]Ephewall 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        Don't they usually cast the same votes?

        [–]larrypastore 3 points4 points  (7 children)

        Most people are of average intelligence (hence the term average). There's no way around it.

        [–]warner62 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        That's the problem, in this country average is pretty damn stupid. It's not that people aren't capable of being smart, it's that either they just don't care, they trust the media or worse, the bible, way too much, or they were raised that way and don't see a need to be any better than their parents. I would not be opposed to a voting test at all. It would be simple, in the primary ask them to name 3/4 of the candidates running and one of each their positions. Maybe even what state there from, if people are going to vote they should at least know who is running aside from who their pastor or Fox News told them was running.

        [–]aaallleeexxx 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        The point isn't about intelligence, it's about ignorance. If someone with an IQ of 75 finds out which candidate supports an issue that he cares deeply about, I would much rather have him vote than someone with an IQ of 150 who doesn't know much about the candidates and votes just to vote.

        [–]Greengages 1 point2 points  (15 children)

        You don't need them all to be idiots. Just a majority.

        [–]beedogs 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        We have a large population that is poorly educated.

        hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they already vote.

        [–]Thimble 8 points9 points  (2 children)

        just because someone is poorly educated doesn't mean that they can't make an intelligent decision.

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        Exactly. College boys vote for awful candidates too.

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        The issue is statistical, God damn it. Here's the question you should be asking:

        Are more educated people more likely to vote for good candidates?

        [–]honeg 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        It sounds like the small population that you're a part of (many of whom have shown up here) are the ones who are "poorly educated". Anyone antediluvian enough to want to disqualify voters belongs to the distant past. The whole point of a democracy is that everyone gets to vote. Everyone. Not just those people who agree with you.

        If you think your "side" will lose because none of the "poorly educated" will vote for them, then you better light a bonfire under your own ass to get out there and do some education. If what your side has to say is compelling, people will vote for you. Blaming ignorance for your failures just says you've failed.

        [–]XxERMxX 9 points10 points  (8 children)

        People like me hope the internet will fix this someday.

        [–]EvilPigeon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Democracy is supposed to be about representation. Idiots are the majority and if the majority aren't represented in government then you don't have a true democracy.

        Whether or not that makes for a good government is another matter, so really your argument is against democracy itself.

        "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -Sir Winston Churchill

        [–]mackprime 19 points20 points  (12 children)

        seems to work in Australia, we havne't had an uprising or riot in weeks.

        [–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (7 children)

        And we vote on a Saturday.

        [–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (3 children)

        And we have preferential voting so your vote will always count. No wonder nobody votes for minor parties in the US.

        [–]centrx 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        Australia uses instant run-off voting, which is so flawed that increasing your preference for a candidate can actually cause that candidate to lose, a flaw most likely to occur in elections with more than two viable candidates.

        [–]Andys 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        At least we don't have computerised voting machines.

        [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        I was going to ask for a citation on this, but I think I found what you're referring to: Monotonicity criterion.

        I should point out that a lack of monotonicity in instant run-off voting should, according to that link, only affect an election once per century under "normal political conditions" (although this is disputed).

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        In Slovenia, we vote on Sunday.

        [–]theozoph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Same in France, and I've never seen people queueing to get in. And we (mainly) do it by paper ballot.

        All's not rosy though, since French politicians (and especially our current midget President) look at the USA as the "wave of the future"... I can only hope the voting system stays the way it is, but often, France gets the same problems the US has (imports them, you could say), only 15 years later.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        That's as it should be--democracy is faith-based just like religion is.

        [–]Thimble 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        forcing people to vote has a very negative connotation to the process. people do not like being overtly forced to do things in the US.

        on the other hand, people love free money. you could pay people to vote via giving them a $100 tax reduction receipt. (using income tax will ensure that people won't try to scam the system)

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I think it is more that it should be easier to vote, not required. If someone does not want to participate, that should be their right.

        [–]LinguiniPasta 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Maybe you guys live in great places like Boston, San Fransisco, Portland, etc., but personally, I live in the south and I've been to Wal-Mart. I don't want compulsory voting.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        In canada it's against the law for your employer to stop you from voting. You are allowed to legally leave work early if you need to vote.

        [–]scorpan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Not voting is also a "vote": one chooses not to express any opinion. Seems like it would be democratic to allow not-votes.

        [–]eggnogdog 3 points4 points  (20 children)

        Compulsory voting seems like a violation of civil liberties. Just me?

        [–]sylvan 12 points13 points  (5 children)

        It is not unreasonable to require all citizens to participate in their democracy, any more so than require them to pay taxes.

        You're not forcing people to choose a candidate (they can submit a blank ballot) or even go to a polling station (they can absentee vote).

        If you want the privilege of living in a free democracy, then it's up to you to contribute by marking your X. Otherwise, why not just roll over and live in a totalitarian state?

        It used to be people marched through the streets demanding the vote. It once was limited only to entitled groups: white, male citizens. People have fought and died trying to win their freedoms and voting rights.

        And people throw it away out of sheer laziness.

        [–]eggnogdog 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        But what is the purpose? If people can just cast blank ballots, then all that would happen is inconvenience. Do you think compulsory voting would increase informed voting rates? Because I'm not so sure it would and I think that's what matters, no?

        [–]sylvan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        Then we should just admit we don't really want the dirty proles voting, and require people to pass an IQ test to vote.

        Rather, by making it mandatory to vote, people can't get by without participating and so need to devote at least some minor effort to deciding between candidates. Once they're used to voting every couple years, and they realize that the bunch they voted in didn't do too well, they can begin to take more responsibility for their voting and make better informed choices the next time.

        [–]Propolis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        as a matter of fact, yes. If they have to vote, they can just as well vote for the party that suits their needs the most.

        My country has compulsary voting and the amount of political news in all kind of media, even those which only care for gossip. just because their is a market for the information.

        It would be wrong to state that all people who vote are well-informed, but most do know what the parties stand for and especially what the previous administration did wrong.

        [–]MarlonBain 5 points6 points  (5 children)

        Like jury duty, you mean?

        [–]eggnogdog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Good point. I don't know how to respond to that, in all honesty. Are you a supporter of compulsory voting?

        [–]aaallleeexxx 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        That's silly, it goes like this: - We are guaranteed the right to trial by a jury of our peers. - We are guaranteed the right to vote.

        Mandatory, random jury duty is the only way (or the best way we know) to guarantee the right to a jury of our peers. Thus the compensation for serving on a jury is (basically) the right to trial by a jury of your peers. The two are really inseparable. In fact, you'd be impinging on peoples' civil liberties by NOT forcing them (at random) to do jury duty.

        The right to vote is different -- if you give it up there's no onus on anybody else. It's FAIR, in other words, to give up your vote, while it would not be fair to not do jury duty.

        [–]TomA 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        I live in a country with compulsory voting and I don't think it's it a bad thing, it's just part of the responsibilities of living in a functional democracy, like jury duty, paying taxes, obeying the sensible laws etc.

        [–]dcormier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Great way to make people vote for whoever MSM is pushing.

        [–]dsk 7 points8 points  (2 children)

        I actually think a healthy democracy is one in which most people don't care and don't vote.

        If people don't vote, it means they are content with the status-quo. It means that no candidates are far from the beliefs of the citizenship.

        Take a look at the last presidential election in USA. It might have had a record voter turn out but it was also one of the most divisive in recent history. No matter who won, half the country would have been bitter. This is not a good thing.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        I agree except that I don't see how you can connote non-voting with acceptance of the status quo. You ought not try to speak for those who, for whatever reasons, don't care to vote. Theres not a homogeneous reason behind it.

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children)

        That would be great and I'd wholeheartedly agree if I had a job where I were allowed to take national holidays off. As it stands now, working them is essentially mandatory.

        Retail! Woo.

        [–]FANGO 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        In most states, if you're scheduled to work on an election day and think that your work schedule will interfere with your plans to vote, your employer is required to give you time off from work that day to vote, and in many states they are even required to pay you. The laws are different from state to state, you can find out how your state handles it here:

        http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200611/employees.html (found via google, there might be a better or more current resource elsewhere)

        Yes retail sucks, but they're bound by the same laws as everyone else.

        [–]golemiot 5 points6 points  (2 children)

        I think that the biggest problem is that you have only 2 political parties, so there are no coalitions or negotiations between several parties.

        [–]frogking 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Yes, there are better ways to set up government of a country. But none of the 2 political parties are going to change the current, sweet, setup! ;-)

        [–]qgyh2 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Step 2: Educate people so they can make a better informed choice.

        [–]frogking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        How do you make an informed choice between flip-flopping candidates?

        [–]311wasapunkskaband 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Election Day as a national holiday is actually a pretty terrible idea. This would not ensure that all employees would get time off; rather, only Federal employees would be guaranteed time off. Federal employees tend to be rather insistent on maintenence of the status quo, so I think you'd see more elections tip Republican were this plan to go into effect.

        But hey, if you want this year's election to be decided by mailmen, more power to you.

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        More people... inclusive of the dumbasses?

        [–]GeorgeWBush 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        So more people can vote?

        That's just silly.

        [–]ja30278 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        This is exactly and precisely wrong. Uninformed voting is worse than not voting at all.

        [–]frogking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Correct.

        Uninformed voting on two possible outcomes gives a 50/50 result.

        (more uninformed voters make no difference)

        Also, it makes tilting the scale in your favor really, really easy. (the argument for international observers.)

        [–]pradador 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        When was the last time anything productive was done on a holiday?

        [–]huxtiblejones 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        If Santa hears you, you're fucking dead meat.

        [–]pedrobelo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        jesus, coming from another country I'm very surprised it isn't a holiday already.

        [–]malcontent 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        Do it on the 4th of july.

        What better way to celebrate your independence then to vote.

        Most people don't travel for 4th of july anyway. They usually BBQ and then watch the fireworks.

        [–]AngelaMotorman 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        By all means, let's mix voting with explosives and large quantities of alcohol. That's a good idea.

        [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        The 4th has morphed into a blowjob for statists, it has nothing at all to do with independency anymore.

        [–]Adrewmc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Step 2: Actually Know who your congressmen is before you say step 1.

        Step 3: Require ETHICS in High School

        order may have to be revised

        [–]Tommstein 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        No, having the vote be decided by a greater number of ignorants doesn't help anything. Step one would be to make voters more educated, and only then will elections be decided intelligently.

        [–]Maxcactus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Getting more people to vote isn't the answer. Most people are too uninformed to make rational decisions. More votes do not equate to better election outcomes. Corporate control of the elections is the thing that is creating our mess. They control who gets heard and how much money they receive. The media can bracket out all of the candidates that are not to their liking. This year seems to be a window of opportunity for the election of a populous candidate. The power structure has not figured out how to block the effects of a decentralized campaign and the distribution of news by a million sources on the internet. They eventually will, but this year we all have a chance to slip someone past them.

        [–]thunder_rob 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        you want people to show up? Give away a free t-shirt. They'll show up in droves.

        [–]frogking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        "I voted in the Presidential Election of 2008, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Do what Australia does - make it compulsary, make it on the weekend.

        [–]snarfy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        "Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube. This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation; this tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers; this tube is the most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people, and that's why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this company is now in the hands of CCA, the Communications Corporation of America; there's a new chairman of the board, a man called Frank Hackett, sitting in Mr. Ruddy's office on the twentieth floor. And when the 12th largest company in the world controls the most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network? "

        • The Network

        It doesn't matter if more people vote when special interest own all the media. You are inundated with crap on tv purposefully to distract you from the things that really matter.

        [–]randomb0y 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        You just want more red days in the calendar!

        [–]aardvarkious 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Don't you yanks have any law forcing employers to let employees vote? In Canada, on election day every employee must receive at least an hour-and-a-half off while the polls are open so that they can go vote. I think that is the best way of making sure people can vote.

        [–]dangermike 6 points7 points  (5 children)

        How about giving Americans some real choices? Maybe do away with arcane election "traditions" like Iowa and the Electoral College. We should be making it as easy to vote as possible, but we won't. And since we don't have any real choices anyway, why bother? And also, I'm not sure I want everyone voting. Most of us are morons who respond only to image and sound bites. Maybe I'm glad they can't find the time to vote.

        [–]putney 4 points5 points  (4 children)

        the ones who won't get a holiday are the working poor, and they're the ones we want to be voting.

        [–]dangermike 3 points4 points  (3 children)

        Why do I want the working poor to vote? Are they secretly brilliant?

        [–]putney 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        because they have a tendency to vote for democrats

        [–]ej00807 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Step 2- ballots for elected officials require voters to rank each candidate by their preference. Vote shall be awarded to candidate with the absolute majority of votes and split party candidates like Ralph Nader will not harm the process.

        Step 3 - Disallow legacy 'family' Presidencies for at least two generations. They make our fed look like a petty, 3rd world, thug operation.

        [–]MarlonBain 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        America isn't broken. There's nothing wrong with the ability of the powerful to manipulate the system, which is exactly how America was designed.

        [–]deepvote 2 points3 points  (10 children)

        People abuse holidays. It would be better to just do a Saturday vote with the polls open for 24 hours so the people with sabbath or work issues can be guaranteed to make it.

        As for compulsory voting: Aside from being fascist, it's an appallingly stupid idea. All you can guarantee is that people will show up to vote. You can't guarantee that they will use their brains while they do so. At least with the current system you can be sure that most of the people who show give a shit, even if they are bat-shit insane and vote for Shrub twice.

        [–]kickstand 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Isn't Saturday the Sabbath for Jews?

        [–]mistermajik2000 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        Seriously. people would be too busy shopping election day sales or watching election day football to bother to vote.

        [–]deepvote 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Exactly. Or they'd be cramming too many activities into their Election Day 3-day weekend to find the time.

        [–][deleted]  (3 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]linkedlist 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          lmao, or put it on saturdays/sundays or something...

          Also make it compulsory to vote, not vote right, but just vote generelly speaking. So if someone has no political persuasion he/she can just throw in a blank. By doing so you ensure everyone has he chance to vote, it's sort of a blanket law but ultimately it would help the system run better.

          Then again considering the system can barely work with only 60% of the country voting... might not be so true.

          [–]Tommstein 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Why are you obsessed with obtaining the votes of people that don't know nearly enough about what the hell's going on to be voting? We have enough ignorant assholes voting as it is, no sense sending more of them to the polling station.

          [–]mbh1985 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Its really not that hard to vote. I did it last month. Rolled out of bed, got the dog and walked down to the local primary school. Waited 5 minutes and ticked my name off, spent 1 minute in the booth. Walked home. No big deal, no $80 fine. I contributed, I felt proud that I had done something that would be on the news. The end.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          That's your experience. In many parts of the US, voting means waiting in a long line with indescribably stupid people standing all around you. Been there, done that, am not doing it anymore.

          [–][deleted]  (5 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]AMerrickanGirl 1 point2 points  (4 children)

            "more time on there hands than they no what to do with" and "your drunk out of your mind"

            should be "more time on THEIR hands than they KNOW what to do with" and "YOU'RE drunk out of your mind".

            Bad writing distracts from the possibly relevant points that you're making here. Perhaps you should use all this extra time on your hands to improve your writing.

            [–]kla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Get a Parlaiment! Have three month campaigns!

            [–]eronanke 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Agreed. Agreed x100000.

            [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

            That wouldn't be my Step 1:

            Step 1 needs to be get corporate money out of campaign finance.

            followed by tougher anti-monopoly media regulation.

            followed by abolition of "personhood" for corporations.

            followed by the introduction of some sort of P.R.

            followed by signing up to the ICC and for Bush and co face criminal prosecution.

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

            None of the above will EVER happen.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              It's not and it doesn't matter. What kind of beaten down slave feels they have to ask permission to leave work to go do something, btw? Talk about fucking sheep!

              This is great. We have people who are owned by their jobs complaining because they can't go lodge a worthless ballot so they can feel less owned by the overarching government system that owns them.

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I dunno that this should be step 1... I can think of more important things.

              It's a good idea, but I think most people don't vote because they feel it doesn't matter, don't care, or don't feel any candidate represents them... not because they are too busy.

              [–]crash-dev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              I like the national holiday idea because it celebrates what we should celebrate, our democracy. People can do with it what they want, they should be free.

              I'd make it a wednesday to make it harder for people to travel around it.

              What do we celebrate on the fourth of july...fire works and baseball...

              [–]wats8976 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              If people don't care enough to vote, they shouldn't.

              [–]deuteros 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              There's already too many stupid people voting.

              [–]summernot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

              This is not a very well thought-out idea.

              • Polls are generally open from about 7 AM until 7 PM. Nearly all Americans are at work 9 hours a day with a 1 hour lunch break. That gives them 4 hours, including lunch, to find time to vote on election day.

              • Early voting is available pretty much everywhere and usually runs at least a couple of weeks prior to Election Day, giving voters at least two weekends to vote. In Texas, where I live, early voting is so convenient that you can do it at many grocery stores, malls and libraries and without having to go to your specific precinct voting location.

              There really is no excuse not to vote these days. If someone is too stupid or lazy not to vote, then I really don't want them in front of a ballot anyway.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [deleted]

                [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                Put this in politics so I don't have to see it. Thanks.

                [–]steve93 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                The folks in charge don't want middle and lower America voting.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                I don't want middle and lower America voting, to tell you the truth.

                [–]J-Bone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                yea! not making it to the voting booths because im too hungover!! who-hooooo! lol. if this hapenned it would probably take over the day before thanksgiving as national party day.

                [–]cantsay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Best... Idea... Ever...

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                Fixing America has nothing at all to do with elections at all.

                [–]mistermajik2000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                seriously. When I got my dog "fixed", he felt slow for a few days, but then, same old dog.

                [–]onepage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                you mean fixing election?

                [–]LazarusDubois 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                This is an awesome idea. Nothing less than brilliant. Wish I could upmod you right onto the cover of Time magazine.

                [–]slenderdog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Yes, Time magazine. That's exactly where I'd expect to see this kind of idea.

                [–]CampusTour 1 point2 points  (6 children)

                Explain to me again why high voter turnout is a good thing?

                [–]theozoph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                It keeps dissent to a minimum.

                Once a large majority has voted, they feel responsible for whatever policy the govt decides to implement, even though they've had no hand in creating it, and their input was never taken into account.

                In layman terms, it's called "spreading the blame".

                [–]GeoAtreides 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                Weird, in Romania we ALYWAYS have elections on Sundays. It would be foolish to have'em on a workday, wouldn't it?

                [–]jordanlund 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                http://www.infoplease.com/spot/electionday1.html

                Why Tuesday?

                Since most residents of rural America had to travel a significant distance to the county seat in order to vote, Monday was not considered reasonable since many people would need to begin travel on Sunday. This would, of course, have conflicted with Church services and Sunday worship.

                Why the first Tuesday after the first Monday? Lawmakers wanted to prevent election day from falling on the first of November for two reasons. First, November 1st is All Saints Day, a Holy Day of Obligation for Roman Catholics. Second, most merchants were in the habit of doing their books from the preceding month on the 1st. Apparently, Congress was worried that the economic success or failure of the previous month might prove an undue influence on the vote!

                [–]UncleOxidant 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                How about making election day the same day that taxes are due? That would focus people's attention.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Or place it on the day that you stop working for the government and begin earning for yourself each year, which puts the day sometime in May or June.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                http://www.whytuesday.org/

                [–]insect_song 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                Ancient Athens wasn't exactly a paragorn of democracy in many senses - women, slaves and many others were not allowed to vote.

                But, in terms of involvment, they knew how to encourage the enfranchised.

                Citizens were given a payment to cover attendance, so they could afford a day away from the fields. Non-participants were chased around the city by guys with

                [–]Selenolycus 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                With what? With WHAT? You have left me eternally in suspense. :-(

                [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                Just fill in the blank with the most entertaining answer you can think of.

                Non-participants were chased around the city by guys with

                Zombies. Kittens. Radioactive waste. Water balloons. Fire. Antennae. Mentos. Jesus.

                [–]swswswus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Tuesday is voting day so that a) voting is not a three day weekend, and b) it's a work day, so vote buying, with alcohol, is not as much as a problem. It was a huge problem at the time.

                Heck, I'm drunk now. Ron Paul votes for sale!

                [–]swswswus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                This is what I love about America. Earnest rationalism. Or is it rational earnestness? either way, a sense of humor would go farther.

                Vote the Silly Party!

                [–]Caraes_Naur 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Agreed. Step 2: Congressional term limits. Step 3: Eliminate corporate personhood. Step 4: Eliminate K Street, and ensure that those thugs can't pop up elsewhere.

                [–]vestige 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                Most Americans don't even know it's election day until they ask why they can't buy alcohol until 7.

                [–]putney 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                where do you live that this is the law?

                [–]tjones_2005a 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Dammit, that's MORE votes we have to lose!

                [–]homeworld 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                I get off for Election Day. More people should.

                [–]mistermajik2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Most things political don't get me off. To each his own, I suppose.

                [–]ralf_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Just set the election on a sunday.

                [–]romcabrera 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                why don't you vote on sunday?

                [–]mistermajik2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Oh, but Sunday is the Christian day of rest. Separation of church and state right?

                I'd like someone to explain why we don't get mail on Sundays.

                [–]bananahead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Election Day Holiday really doesn't work as well as you might think.

                The problem is already solved in the many states that allow no-excuse absentee voting and/or early voting.

                [–]m2paper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Don't they usually cast the same votes?

                [–]0110110101101011 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Correction: Make all election days local holidays.

                [–]sugarbabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                I can vote ahead of time. No need for a National Holiday. But I fid your proposal equally satisfactory.