Removing party affiliation from ballots. Small step. Enormous effect.

"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

Removing the party affiliation and straight line voting from ballots is one of the easiest and most effective methods we have at our disposal to break the stranglehold of the false R/D oligarchy and start getting people in who actually stand for what they claim rather than hide behind a party label but do whatever they like.

Currently there are enormous swaths of uninformed voters going in and "doing their part" for their "team" by taking a couple of seconds to press the button of their chosen team. No need to even know who is on the ballot, whether the party still represents their interests, etc. Nothing needed but a sense of "pride" for "supporting the good guys".

If you remove the blanket voting, as well as any indication of a candidate's party... you force a person voting to either choose randomly or... wait for it... know who they are voting for and why.

It should be painfully obvious why the current R/D oligarchy doesn't want this to happen. They would lose their support base in a single election.

Enormous numbers of manipulated and unaware voters would simply not vote because it would be too inconvenient. Nobody is helped by having people that don't know what they are voting for casting votes.

I doubt anyone here wants me voting on your financial decisions without knowing anything about you. Why do we tolerate this for our government?

For those who think this will be "discriminatory" against anyone: You are flagrantly advertising what you really mean is "this will make it so entire blocks of voters can't be led by the nose to support my team via taking advantage of their ignorance".

It *should* be hard to know who to vote for. It's not an easy decision and requires effort.

I don't think removing information to dumb the ballot down is ever the answer. I'd like to see much more, personally. A few sentences on each of the top 3-4 to state and national level races to cover the simplest of bio's would be nice too. Like a small inset at each name.

Missouri deemed that we didn't even need to know who was incumbent, for instance. Oh, handy for THEM..isn't it? If I intend to hold to my anti-incumbent position, I'm going to need to bring in my own list to identify who is who down the ticket and away from the headliner races.

Nope... Dumber is never better for that sort of thing, IMO.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


While your sentiment makes sense I see a different aspect of the issue here in WA state. A while back we began receiving voters pamphlets with candidates stating they were "Nonpartisan." To me this felt like a lie, there is a big difference between nonpartisan and being a closet democrat or republican.

Washington is pretty divided between urban and rural voters. Similar to what Colorado is facing. Conservatives have more difficulty on the urbanized west side of the state, democrats have more difficulty on the rural east side of the state.

I think both parties just got together and agreed not to tell their party affiliation where it would benefit them. The only ones telling the truth now seem to be folks running under the banner of Libertarian.

Jesse Ventura has been advocating this, if only so that limited-education voters would have to do a tiny bit of research to understand who they're voting for.

I'd prefer we cut straight to the chase (Chase?) and simply put the corporate sponsors on the ballot.

We're all really just voting for Exxon, or Goldman Sachs, or General Electric, or Halliburton anyway. Maybe use logos to make it simple for the simpletons.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You should have all that information before you enter the voting box.

"Dumbing down" is when you ADD "tutorial" information to something because the person didn't come prepared.

It is too late to make a truly informed decision once in the voting box.

If you don't go in knowing who you are voting for and able to explain to someone else why... you are NOT making an informed vote.

It is the "hardass" version that says "Here are the names and offices they are running for. Choose". It is the dumbed down version which says "Here... let me help you... we know you couldn't be bothered to study ahead of time."

Think of it from this angle: WHO decides how the bio is written? That is an invitation for corruption. WHO decides what information is included about a voting record and what is "irrelevant"? More room for corruption.

I'm sorry Wrabbit... but you are asking for the dumbed down version which leaves the doors AND windows wide open for outright manipulation. Can you not see how whoever is ultimately in charge of organizing what is included about each candidate is now in a position to influence the vote?

Voters must be held to a standard that knows what they are voting for before they arrive on that day to vote if there is any chance of having a truly informed and non-manipulative ballot box.

Even a straight list contains the problem of "who gets listed first". Randomized ordering helps with this.

Wrabbit2000
Missouri deemed that we didn't even need to know who was incumbent, for instance. Oh, handy for THEM..isn't it? If I intend to hold to my anti-incumbent position, I'm going to need to bring in my own list to identify who is who down the ticket and away from the headliner races.

Exactly. You have to do your homework and come informed.

It is fascinating that you don't seem to recognize you are advocating for the "voting for dummies" method.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


What a GREAT idea! S&F for that. The only information that should show up about a candidate on the ballot box is their name and I guess what office they are running for. We really need to do something about the uninformed voting going on in this country. It is destroying us by putting in wolves in sheep's clothing.

Letting a voter know what party the candidate represents is providing too much information for the voter. If the voter truly wants to vote along party lines, force them to research the candidates who are running in their state. Maybe during the course of looking up a candidate's party affiliation, they'll actually learn something about who they are voting for instead.

I'm going to piggyback on your idea and say that we need term limits in Congress as well. Some of the worst members of Congress are the ones who have been there for the better part of their lives.

Bassago
While your sentiment makes sense I see a different aspect of the issue here in WA state. A while back we began receiving voters pamphlets with candidates stating they were "Nonpartisan." To me this felt like a lie, there is a big difference between nonpartisan and being a closet democrat or republican.

People can claim whatever they like.

When candidates can't depend on votes just by claiming a party (or no party in an area that leans that way)... then if they continue to mis-represent themselves the informed voters (the only ones that will bother to vote in significant numbers) will pick up on the fact that they don't act according to their promises and the candidate will not win in the next election.

We do this in our personal lives all the time. People claim stuff... over time we learn who the chronic liars are and those we can trust. We make educated decisions based on these experiences as to who we will work with, travel with, live with, etc. When we find our trust violated we ensure amends are made or we cease participating with them.

What is so scary about having to do the same and take the same level of responsibility when voting for the people that manage the purse strings and guns of entire districts, states, and nations?

Does doing this mean people won't still vote according to party lines based on information provided outside the voting box? Of course not.

However we don't have do the work and automate it for them in the ballot itself.

Just by making the effort to seek/receive/remember the names forces people to come into contact with information that they otherwise wouldn't come into contact that will inform their vote far more than if they can just walk in and push the Red or Blue or Green button.

BardingTheBard

What is so scary about having to do the same and take the same level of responsibility when voting for the people that manage the purse strings and guns of entire districts, states, and nations?

When we get our election pamphlets here it is quite common to have a half dozen or more people running for positions and no one has ever heard of them before. To face a choice of voting out an incumbent only to find half dozen unknown people all claiming to be "nonpartisan" with no bio information makes it a little rough.

At least when a candidate states they are dems (progressives) or reps (corporate conservative) I know not to vote for them. People can lie, sure but I would like to know a little about them myself. Especially if they are an unknown. When someone says they are Libertarian or Independent or Green party they are usually not lying.

Bassago
When we get our election pamphlets here it is quite common to have a half dozen or more people running for positions and no one has ever heard of them before. To face a choice of voting out an incumbent only to find half dozen unknown people all claiming to be "nonpartisan" with no bio information makes it a little rough.

Yes... voting intelligently is hard. It takes effort. It is rough. Why should anyone expect it to be easy?

We have the internet now... this isn't the 1950's where the pamphlet you get is all you have to work from.

A person SHOULD have to spend their evenings after work researching the people asking to take control of their local, state, and national purse strings and guns. And not just in one night of casual glancing.

If a person is unknown... they have to prove themselves at a local level where people do know them and build from there. Build a record that can be referenced and researched by voters when they want to take on larger responsibilities.

Bassago
At least when a candidate states they are dems (progressives) or reps (corporate conservative) I know not to vote for them. People can lie, sure but I would like to know a little about them myself. Especially if they are an unknown. When someone says they are Libertarian or Independent or Green party they are usually not lying.

Many candidates running as R/D wouldn't do so any longer if there was a viable chance to win on merit alone.

Even Ron Paul ran as a Republican... was he "lying" when he did? There are people who jumped on the libertarian bandwagon locally that don't really represent libertarian interests.

Voting is a responsibility. A real responsibility. It affects your children. Grandchildren. etc. We expect people to research their investments, schools, neighborhoods, etc... but we for some reason want to make it easy to know who to vote for.

Well... when we make it easy to know who to vote for... we get... what we have.

Wasn't there an eddie Murphy movie where he won on name recognition alone?

Removing the party affiliation is both a good and bad idea. There are far to many people who don't vote now out of apathy.

I think the only thing that will break the stranglehold of the left right is if independents actually organize and have their own primaries. I know they already do to some extent but it's kind of a joke. Last election there were some positions that had 20 different parties on the ballet.

There is no single fix those in power have had a very long time to set it up in their favor making hundreds if not thousands of changes. Redistributing is a major one.

reply to post by Bassago


But here's the thing, even the people voting against the incumbent or for an independent party vote blindly. This isn't just an issue reserved for dumb Democrats and dumb Republicans. Voting blindly across the board no matter how you are voting is stupid. If you truly want to do something like that, at the very least you should be forced to look up your candidates and remember which one is which.

Grimpachi
There are far to many people who don't vote now out of apathy.

Partially because they know their vote doesn't really matter. So why bother?

And if someone is apathetic... you don't want them voting anyway.

Grimpachi
I think the only thing that will break the stranglehold of the left right is if independents actually organize and have their own primaries. I know they already do to some extent but it's kind of a joke. Last election there were some positions that had 20 different parties on the ballet.

Over time they will become just like the establishment if they just mimic the method and system of those they seek to replace. If they gain traction... those that operated well under the R/D umbrella will transition seamlessly to the next label that gets them the votes just for being under that label.

Grimpachi
There is no single fix those in power have had a very long time to set it up in their favor making hundreds if not thousands of changes. Redistributing is a major one.

There never is.

But continuing to automate the "vote for your favorite team" system currently in place clearly doesn't help *improve* the informed voter situation.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Screw voter apathy, if a voter is voting just to vote, he shouldn't be voting. If we were to implement this change and voting participation dropped, then so what? At least we know that the people who are showing up to vote did a little research before doing so (or just filled out a bunch of random checkboxes).

I would rather 10% of the population show up to vote as long as they are informed of their choices over 100% showing up just to vote party lines.

Im sure requiring voters to know who they're voting for violates some "poll tax" nonsense.

I find it funny that the very first obstacle the government puts up in front of grants, loans and the like is that you actively seek them out and fill out the forms correctly.

That alone separates countless chaff from the wheat.

But for voting? Nah. We encourage as many chaff as possible to grunt their way to the polls and fill in any old dot with absolutely no thought or discretion whatsoever.

Yay, America!

My favorite is the buses. Round up every comatose and disconnected slob you can find. Their votes count!

reply to post by BardingTheBard


While I usually find myself debating Wrabbit2000, this time I totally agree his/her post. "Dumber is never better"

Wrabbit2000
I don't think removing information to dumb the ballot down is ever the answer. I'd like to see much more, personally. A few sentences on each of the top 3-4 to state and national level races to cover the simplest of bio's would be nice too. Like a small inset at each name.

Missouri deemed that we didn't even need to know who was incumbent, for instance. Oh, handy for THEM..isn't it? If I intend to hold to my anti-incumbent position, I'm going to need to bring in my own list to identify who is who down the ticket and away from the headliner races.

Nope... Dumber is never better for that sort of thing, IMO.

Furthermore, I also happen to agree with these sentiments expressed in signalfire's post;

signalfire
I'd prefer we cut straight to the chase (Chase?) and simply put the corporate sponsors on the ballot.

We're all really just voting for Exxon, or Goldman Sachs, or General Electric, or Halliburton anyway. Maybe use logos to make it simple for the simpletons.

And while I do agree with this post by Krazyshot, I feel like it's incomplete.

Krazysh0t
Some of the worst members of Congress are the ones who have been there for the better part of their lives.

.....and the very worst members of Congress are the ones who have only been around since about 2010.

As far as I'm concerned, the less a politician is willing to display about themselves, the easier it is for them to make false representation. More often than not, even the Independent will tell you who they will caucus with. It should be no secret.

Flatfish
While I usually find myself debating Wrabbit2000, this time I totally agree his/her post. "Dumber is never better"

I will repeat.

Adding a "tutorial" to a ballot IS the dumber version.

It is also the version that opens the door for someone with an agenda to craft these bios to serve that agenda without the voter having any input or awareness into their manipulation.

Raw Data is the "hardass" version which expects research from the voter ahead of time.

Saying to someone "We know you couldn't be bothered to research this so we took care of it for you" IS the dumbed down version and the version open to agenda crafting.

-------------------

Let's put it another way. You are going to take a test for a class. There are two versions of the test.

One has the questions and list of possible answers for you to choose from.

Another has the questions, a list of possible answers, and some additional information to help guide you in your decision on how to answer.

Which test is the dumbed down one?

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I would rather 10% of the population show up to vote as long as they are informed of their choices over 100% showing up just to vote party lines.

I kind of disagree with you only because I have seen the opposite in practice. Many countries have mandatory voting laws in place and it has been my experience that the people in those countries are far more involved and knowledgable about both the process and those running for positions. Why that is I can only guess but I do know the politicians seem to work together better to reach equitable solutions for the people instead of their backers.

I was in costa rica for their last election and the difference was evident. I am not saying their system is perfect or everyone walked away happy but in general the population knew what was going on and felt they were represented more so than we do.

reply to post by Grimpachi


It probably helps a little that Costa Rica has a dozen political parties with at least 4 or 6 that are actually contending and winning/losing seats.

A situation like that makes it much more difficult to be an R or D drone.

Here you're mocked for suggesting voting for an alternate party and even in the very rare chance a non-R or D gets in that person is simply absorbed by one of the two parties making your vote for a third party just another vote for one of the two.

In 2010 the Libertarian candidate got 20% of the popular vote there. Safe to say things are substantially different in Costa Rica.

Flatfish
reply to post by BardingTheBard

 

As far as I'm concerned, the less a politician is willing to display about themselves, the easier it is for them to make false representation. More often than not, even the Independent will tell you who they will caucus with. It should be no secret.

Well here's the kicker, without all the information being provided for you, you have to do the research on your own to determine the candidate that suits your interests. False representation, happens already so I don't really see much difference there. However, just by giving the public that one little push towards seeking knowledge may be just enough to get the voting base more involved with their decisions.