6 ms·

I strongly, strongly suspect that the primary motivation for this comes from the fact that higher voter turnout tends to favor democrats. http://america.aljaze

I strongly, strongly suspect that the primary motivation for this comes from the fact that higher voter turnout tends to favor democrats. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/progressives-need-to-stop-looking-for-a-hero.html http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/progressives-ne...

whamlastxmas 10y ago
Probably the most under-represented group is the youth vote, so 100% turnout would probably mean much more progressive, socialist results as well. I say socialist here without the negative connotation.
dexterdog 10y ago
What does that say about people who can't be bothered to register and/or vote?
antisthenes 10y ago
Not democrats, but liberal fiscal policy. Although seeing as how there's no party in the US that would cater to social conservatives and fiscal liberals (and vice versa), your statement is mostly correct.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Not democrats I'm pretty sure it favors Democrats.The GOP long has tried to suppress votes; what other motive would they have?
  - marxmarv 10y ago
    The drama of something to argue over with their Establishment sister party, perhaps? It is plain that the Democratic Party doesn't want Sanders voters if they're going to demand Sanders policy outcomes. There's no drama in successfully helping people, and what kind of partisanship isn't made of drama? It is plain that the GOP didn't want Trump voters until Trump more or less took over the ticket with the help of professional-class journalists looking for... drama.
  - some-guy 10y ago
    I think that it hurts the GOP more than it directly helps Democrats. In my mind a sudden large increase in voter turnout may give sway to candidates running as Democrats that may not be totally in line with the DNC as a whole. You're seeing a huge leftward push by Democratic voters in the presidential election, and while I don't believe it's as fragmented as the GOP currently is, I don't see any reason why this split won't continue.
hueving 10y ago
If that were true, why wouldn't the government try to push mandatory voting laws when it had leadership from the Democrat party?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > If that were true, why wouldn't the government try to push mandatory voting laws when it had leadership from the Democrat party? Because the Democratic Party prefers to expand voting by expanding access (making it easier to register, and easier to vote by expanding times, methods, etc.) rather than by personal mandates and threats of punishment.
  - justinlardinois 10y ago
    Never mind that at the end of the day, the federal government has very little control over elections.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      The Democratic Party doesn't just exist in federal government, so I'm not sure how that's relevant, whether or not its true.
      - rtpg 10y ago
        Well looking at state legislatures, it kind of doesn't exist outside the federal gov't
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        Looking at legislatures, plenty where the Democrats are more powerful at the State level then they are in Congress.

whamlastxmas 10y ago

Probably the most under-represented group is the youth vote, so 100% turnout would probably mean much more progressive, socialist results as well. I say socialist here without the negative connotation.

dexterdog 10y ago

What does that say about people who can't be bothered to register and/or vote?

antisthenes 10y ago

Not democrats, but liberal fiscal policy. Although seeing as how there's no party in the US that would cater to social conservatives and fiscal liberals (and vice versa), your statement is mostly correct.

hackuser 10y ago
> Not democrats I'm pretty sure it favors Democrats.The GOP long has tried to suppress votes; what other motive would they have?
- marxmarv 10y ago
  The drama of something to argue over with their Establishment sister party, perhaps? It is plain that the Democratic Party doesn't want Sanders voters if they're going to demand Sanders policy outcomes. There's no drama in successfully helping people, and what kind of partisanship isn't made of drama? It is plain that the GOP didn't want Trump voters until Trump more or less took over the ticket with the help of professional-class journalists looking for... drama.
- some-guy 10y ago
  I think that it hurts the GOP more than it directly helps Democrats. In my mind a sudden large increase in voter turnout may give sway to candidates running as Democrats that may not be totally in line with the DNC as a whole. You're seeing a huge leftward push by Democratic voters in the presidential election, and while I don't believe it's as fragmented as the GOP currently is, I don't see any reason why this split won't continue.

hueving 10y ago

If that were true, why wouldn't the government try to push mandatory voting laws when it had leadership from the Democrat party?

dragonwriter 10y ago
> If that were true, why wouldn't the government try to push mandatory voting laws when it had leadership from the Democrat party? Because the Democratic Party prefers to expand voting by expanding access (making it easier to register, and easier to vote by expanding times, methods, etc.) rather than by personal mandates and threats of punishment.
- justinlardinois 10y ago
  Never mind that at the end of the day, the federal government has very little control over elections.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The Democratic Party doesn't just exist in federal government, so I'm not sure how that's relevant, whether or not its true.
    - rtpg 10y ago
      Well looking at state legislatures, it kind of doesn't exist outside the federal gov't
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        Looking at legislatures, plenty where the Democrats are more powerful at the State level then they are in Congress.