scratch-mark

Da Rections! Da Rections!

Cue midget in white suit, John Kerry similarly outfitted, presiding, to usher in your nightmares and lessons.

The Iowa deal is rather hilarious. Bunch of cauc-us-es. What if they made iPhones instead of grew corn in order to get your money in order to make your car perform worse, and create higher corn prices for folks who subside on it? Never mind. The planet is as stake. Who cares about [politically irrelevant] people?

So let’s just usher in the season where I fucking laf regularly at how shamelessly pathetic you “voters,” are, all pumped up and proudly wearing lapel stickers to proclaim flamboyantly that you got your 1 in 300 millionth say in your own affairs.

This is timeless, at least in the immediate past, present, and future.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

4 Comments

  1. tatertot on February 9, 2016 at 16:31

    Since they have debunked the “10 times as many bacteria” thing, maybe you should check out the voter turnout records. Voters actually have a 1 in 129,000,000 say in electing a president, lol.

    Look at these numbers, though. They seem high to me. Do 54% of all voting age people really vote? I wonder what it would be if you could do it online from home or work?

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php

    • Patrick Black on February 10, 2016 at 06:37

      It likely wouldn’t have all that great a positive impact, and in smaller communities it would likely decrease turnout. There was a study published in 2008 on the impact that voting by mail had in Switzerland. From the abstract:
      “Optional postal voting decreased the voting costs, but simultaneously removed the social pressure to vote. In spite of the large reduction in voting costs, the effect on aggregate turnout was small. However, voter participation was more negatively affected in the smaller communities. This lends support to the view that social incentives played a role for certain people’s voting decisions.”
      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917770

      In other words, it wasn’t the voting that was important to many people, it was being SEEN voting that mattered.

  2. king of the one eyed people on February 10, 2016 at 13:05

    If it were possible, would you sell your vote to someone else to use as they choose? If so, at what price?

    • Richard Nikoley on February 10, 2016 at 17:29

      Me? No. It’s worthless, regardless of what price a market might put on it, and really don’t deal in machinations where people get to feel like they are controllling the actions and values or others.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780