Should voting be mandatory in the U.S.?

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (77 posts)
  1. JPac1 profile image61
    JPac1posted 3 years ago

    Should voting be mandatory in the U.S.?

    President Obama said Wednesday mandatory voting would be "transformative", referencing a potential change in how money is spent in campaigns. There might be less vying to get certain groups to come to the polls, but more to get certain groups to change their vote. How would requiring eligible adults to vote change American politics? Would it serve the American public? Would it benefit certain groups of people over others?

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12289777_f260.jpg

  2. lovemychris profile image63
    lovemychrisposted 3 years ago

    I think it's a great idea. Of course, the Stump People would never allow it. "How dare the gubmint force me to vote"...."I want my freedom to not vote and to not pay taxes...just let me get filthy rich and use this country to my benefit. Why should I be forced to contribute and participate?"

    It's a grand idea....another one that will go down due to ignorance and media persuasion, IMO.

    1. JPac1 profile image61
      JPac1posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I'm curious what you think the media will contribute to this discussion that might cause it to fail?

    2. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Media will all get the memo, and start blasting us with "Gvt taking over our lives" "Tyranny" "Gvt telling us what to do"..."Stand up for your freedom! Is this Castro's Cuba?"...etc etc --all that inane propaganda suited for a 2 yr old. In My Opinion

    3. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      So you don't seem to have a problem with government force, cool. No wonder the basic impulse of the left is toward despotism and not liberty.

    4. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It's not force, it's a choice. Vote, or give up citizenship. You religios are the ones into force. I'm all about freedom of choice.

    5. JPac1 profile image61
      JPac1posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Do you think there is some kind of inherent way the media works that will cause some kind of universal message to be sent? I'm not sure I see the validity of your argument that the media will be responsible for this idea's failure.

    6. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      How long did the media keep us on the "Obama is not a citizen" meme? Remember when that mom was CRYING because Obama was "indoctrinating" her kid at school? Death Panels, ACA is killing people, "G-Dam America", Muslims BAD-Perception is reality.MEdia

  3. gmwilliams profile image86
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12162152_f260.jpg

    No, voting shouldn't be mandatory at all.  Mandatory voting is an oxymoron.  If people are mandated to do something, they will do so mindlessly.  What we need is an educated & informed public.  Voting should be with much forethought & insight.  People should be educated regarding the importance of voting.  Voting shouldn't never be done in name only but with cognizance of the result of the act therein.  When people are forced to vote, they won't put any thought as to whom to vote but vote only out of obligation.  We need INVOLVED & ENGAGED voters, not mindless automatons!

    1. tsadjatko profile image60
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Well said gm! But the Democrat Party which hasbeen taken over by the left wing "progressives", needs an uneducated uninformed public to stay in control, which is all they care about, the power NOT the people.

    2. JPac1 profile image61
      JPac1posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      What about voting incentives? Like a tax write-off? The ones who are too lazy to inform themselves before voting might also be too lazy to worry about the tax benefit. Win-win? Or bad idea?

    3. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Why do you hate poor people? They deserve a voting voucher because they don't earn enough for the tax.People who are intellectually lazy already do not vote,no incentive necessary.Why is it government's job to protect people from their own failings?

  4. Mark Lees profile image84
    Mark Leesposted 3 years ago

    Rather than making voting mandatory why not give them something worth voting for?

    The difference in real terms between political parties is very slim although the media will try and tell you they are polar opposites. People don't vote because they recognise that none of the candidates really represent them or their interests.

    By making voting mandatory it will just allow governments to claim they have an even greater mandate for their policies - particularly in a two party system when they can say they have over 50% of the popular vote.

    Just another way of making the lack of democracy appear democratic.

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Thank YOU! Intelligent answer! Obama is not a president but a DICTATOR!

    2. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Please offer some proof of that.....it's the most ridiculous statement from the Right.

    3. JPac1 profile image61
      JPac1posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Just to be clear, President Obama did not publicly say voting should be mandatory. Rather, he questioned if it would be beneficial. But, it begs the question.  Would mandatory voting not clearly show who the majority want in office?

    4. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Creating a legal status for illegal aliens,that is dictatorship.

    5. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It wasnt when ole Reagan and Bush did it.....why now?

    6. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      When did either one create a legal status where one did not exist before? Barack Obama is in direct violation of the Separation of Powers.

    7. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      No he's not. He told them to act, or he would. They gave him the nanee nanee nana treatment. He is prez, they act like he's a porter on a train. btw--Congress violates separation of powers all the time by treating the office of prez disrespectfully.

    8. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Lefties understand nothing, sometimes it appears willful ignorance, other times raw ignorance.The President does not order Congress - ever.The President is not empowered to create a legal status - ever.Respect is not a Constitutional requirement.

    9. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Nor does the Congress spit on the Presidency! Respect is mandatory....otherwise: why bother? And this Congress is guilty of violating Logan Act. That is treason.

    10. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      That Logan Act argument is meaningless and if this Congress is guilty multiple previous DEMOCRAT Congresses are just as, if not more so.How has this Congress disrespected the president, by not smooching his butt-ocks?!?!

    11. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Not true.It is unprecedented in history.Only reason no one is doing anything is because it was Bibi and Adelson requesting the treason, imo,and we are owned by AIPAC,of whom I never voted for to run my country! Go support the unelected-I support prez

  5. profile image60
    retief2000posted 3 years ago

    Is the "vote" itself the property of the individual citizen? This is merely a further demonstration of how little Barack Obama actually understands the nature of a Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic. A government that commands compliance is no longer serving its citizens but subjugating them.

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      +++++ in agreement! Welcome to the USSA!

    2. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Tell me about it...I can go to jail for driving without my license! During Bush--Sheehan was taken to police station and booked...for a t-shirt! Obama who?

    3. tsadjatko profile image60
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah,right, so nobody should be required to have a license to drive and there shouldn't be any house rules barring demonstrations in the galleries? (she was removed charges were were never pressed) You're not a radical, they are, right?

    4. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      That's right! The gvt is subjecting me to a license=$, a test=$, a yearly inspection=$ to get myself to work everyday. Meanwhile, you can buy a gun with a picture id! Sheehan was NOT demonstrating. She wore a shirt elBushbo didn't like. Unitary Exec.

    5. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      How sad.Here you pay for the license alone and soon will be able to carry your firearm without needing a permit.God Bless America-it still recognizes the natural right to self protection and the necessity to guarantee competent drivers,USAUSAUSAUSA!!

    6. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah. No competent gun owners tho, huh? Both cars and guns capable of causing death, but one gets a free pass. Know why? Because they buy legislation, we dont vote on it!

    7. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The right to self defense is a natural right. I know this notion is far too complicated for you to understand, but natural rights cannot be limited if one is to live in liberty. The limitation of natural rights is tyranny.

    8. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Sure it is, unless you're a Palestinian! Or a Black Panther fighting for their life against the Feds--Gun control then, eh, Reagan! Or a woman who fires a warning shot against an abuser:20 yrs. Self defense also includes safety from wacko's with guns

    9. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      If a woman fires a warning shot in the Great AmeriKan left, like New Jersey, she may have trouble.In real America.not so much.Legally held firearms are far less dangerous than the ones Obama sent to the Mexican Cartels.

    10. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Ok--so why do you balk at more legalization?If I need classes, test, yearly inspection of my car--should be the same for guns. Personal use was only put in by that extremest Supreme Court of Righty's."well-armed militia" my aunt fanny

    11. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      How said that someone with an education is so incapable of reading the Constitution.Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the rulings of multiple prior courts on the same issue.It has always been (here comes the redundancy) an individual right

    12. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      An individual right for group purposes.Only in 2008 your boys interpreted it for personal home use. And even then, it wasn't any and all guns you so desire. Sheesh: your activist court has cost many lives! And look here- I respect it as U do RoevWade

  6. tsmog profile image83
    tsmogposted 3 years ago

    Voting by absentia or not casting a vote is voting for the majority by default. If one simply fills in their name or I.D. and then casts a blank ballot that is in fact voting. It is an act of 'free will' saying I vote for the majority rule. At question could be 'why' a particular chooses that vote while realizing they have that right of vote. The act of not voting by not placing a check mark or etc. or even the action of not registering does cast a vote. Mandatory voting simply does not make sense . . . common or otherwise IMHO. It is not practical nor IMHO have the capacity of application or process of having the 'right to vote' without negating the right of vote.

    1. tsadjatko profile image60
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Well said,could be a reason why for over two hundred years we have not made voting mandatory.Again Obama blew it, like immigration he should have proposed this when he had control of congress if he was serious about it. Lame as lameduck can be.

    2. JPac1 profile image61
      JPac1posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      So, in other words, you're saying it would not accurately portray what the populous wants in their leader because too many people might "vote" with a blank ballot?

    3. tsmog profile image83
      tsmogposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I am not sure what 'it' is. Mandatory voting? How can one regulate mandatory voting while ensuring a free election with a 'secret ballot'? If one does not prefer any choice will a box have to be marked? Or, will there be a box "None" be available?

    4. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      A mandatory vote would negate a free or secret vote and guarantee tyranny - the natural tendency of the leftist.

    5. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Bulloney! It would still be secret, and give citizens the power over special interests. As it is now, the peoples will is ignored.

    6. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I love looking at all the people in line waiting to vote on election day. I have yet to see Big Pharma, Planned Parenthood or the NRA waiting in line to cast a vote.

    7. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You know lobbiests work behind the scenes....except that time Boehner handed out checks for Big Tobaccy on the floor...or we have AIPAC, who can make or break a career. WE the PEOPLE are the rulers here: voting should be mandatory.Price of admission.

    8. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, really. Forcing people to vote doesn't sound wrong to lefties?Perhaps forcing people to exercise other Constitutional Rights would be equally appealing to lefty tyrants-everyone should be forced to own a fun and attend Democrat Party Rallies.

    9. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      That's because you use the inflammatory word Force. Like Forcing me to have a baby against my will. There are many things "forced" on us...But voting was a GIFT the founders put in there. A great gift that we squander because of insidious whisperers.

    10. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. G.Washington.

    11. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Gvt is a force for good--until it is infiltraited by treasonus greed-mongers. We have been infiltraited. It is up to US to get them out, and be America of the people for the people by the people....ALL the people. We have been used and abused. Enuff!

    12. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I wonder if all those Native Americans wiped out by government thought it was a force for good.

    13. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It wasn't called gvt back then...it was "people escaping tyranny". But no--the "Indians" were not treated well by the invaders. But now, we have people from all over the world and all walks of life here, and we CAN make it what WE want. People'r good

    14. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it was called government, reality must be terribly uncomfortable for lefties. The word government predates Columbus.

    15. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It took a while to form a gvt here....which is why they got along w and got much help from the "Natives" at first. They had no concept of this Devilishness that took over. *sigh* Tea Baggers even back then! Once "mine" came into the picture: Done

    16. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The Mayflower Compact, history is a tough subject for lefties because it is rooted in the real. Government is as old as the first tribal meeting in the first band of Neanderthals.

    17. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have a problem w gvt,until it's infiltraited by thieves. If all people voted, perhaps that would not happen. I'm sure you know, a rotten apple spoils the whole barrell. We have about 13% ROTTEN, and they all vote. We need the 87% decent vote.

  7. M. T. Dremer profile image94
    M. T. Dremerposted 3 years ago

    Yes, voting should be mandatory. When it's the cornerstone of your democracy, 30%-40% isn't good enough. Is it still a democracy if a select few are calling the shots? Sure, everyone CAN vote, but when there are special interests trying to make it more difficult, why would they?

    And, while it can seem unappealing on the surface, to the American mentality of "you can't tell me what to do". Keep in mind that there is a reason we have laws. If a police officer tells you not to steal that car, do you say "Get off my back, government" and then steal the car? Of course not, because you don't want to go to jail, and you don't want a bunch of other people running around stealing cars either. A law against stealing cars won't stop all thefts, but it will make the country a safer place overall. And a law making voting mandatory wouldn't be perfect, but it would make the country more inclusive, overall.

    The biggest crime of politicians is the encouragement of the narrative that 'nothing can get done'. It's so effective that the majority of the public has been discouraged out of voting altogether. In my mind, the only way to reverse this trend is to require it. We are all citizens of the United States, and we should all have a say in who runs it.

    1. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Bravo!

    2. tsadjatko profile image60
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The corner stone o/d is not to force anyone to give up their right to choose to vote.You really think forcing someone who chooses not to vote,to vote, furthers democracy?If someone cares so little about this country not to vote,why want them to?

    3. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Because they've been brainwashed to think it doesn't matter...so we end up being ruled by  a 13% extremist minority.

    4. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The vote belongs to the citizen not the State. To compel someone to vote under the threat of legal penalty is to deny them the free use of their vote. This is not liberty, it is the natural desire of leftists to force choices.Vote or Die?

    5. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Wrong. Making sure we all vote saves us from the tyranny of special intersts who always do. The state is the people, not some foreign entity. We need to remember that, and not let America be sold to the highest bidder.

    6. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "The State is the people" is that what you tell yourself when you complain about your driver's license, driver's test and license plates?The State is the people, is that true in a dictatorship?

    7. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The drivers license comment was in answer to the silly claims about tyranny. Yet--having a wand probe my daughters insides doesn't seem to bother you. We all must vote! Otherwise special interests win the day. Voting comes w citizenship:we will care.

    8. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      So government MAKES you vote and that is reasonable?What happens if someone doesn't vote-property seizure?The government already does that, every time it gets a chance.Government is force and lefties want to subject everyone to force,all the time.

    9. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      No--you just can't be citizen. Make a new visa or something. HB 3: non-citizen. You can live here, but not call yourself American....kind of like I think they should do with the dual-citizens now. America First, or don't claim her!

    10. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      So, you are saying that non-citizens get all the benefits of living here without the government making you vote and citizens get all the obligations plus government will force you to vote?Awesome, should we start building those gulags now?

    11. lovemychris profile image63
      lovemychrisposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The Gulags are already here...they're called Ghettos. I have no problem saying you vote, or you're not a citizen. Can't throw them out-but can't salute the flag, either. You're a welcome guest in my home. But since I vote...I make the rules!

  8. Austinstar profile image86
    Austinstarposted 3 years ago

    If a person is required to pay taxes, they should be required to vote for the government that is managing their taxes.
    Your money should pay for what you want, not what rich people who can afford to buy politicians want.
    You wouldn't put your money in a bank that you didn't choose. Why are you putting your money into a government that you don't choose?
    If you invest your money into stock, bonds, or savings accounts, don't you think you should be choosing which ones?
    Everywhere in the world, money is power. With the combined power of the U.S. tax paying citizens, we should be able to vote with that tax money. If we have to require some people to pay their taxes, we should also require them to vote for how that money is spent.

    1. JPac1 profile image61
      JPac1posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Would requiring people to vote bring people who don't know what they're doing or how to do it to the polls? How would you make sure people are voting with good information?

    2. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      So if someone pays no taxes should they be barred from voting?You do not find the notion of Forcing people to vote contradictory.People already vote for handouts,direct control over spending would destroy the entire Civil Society.

    3. Austinstar profile image86
      Austinstarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      JPac1 - We can only present information. It's up to the individual to assimilate it. Retief- Remember the fight for NO taxation without representation? If you pay taxes, you should have a vote. Education is key.

    4. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      So, axiomatically, if one does not pay taxes, i.e. all those receiving the earned income tax credit or any form of public assistance, then one should not be allowed to vote.If that is what you are saying, good luck with that.

    5. Austinstar profile image86
      Austinstarposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      retief - good luck to anyone who tries tax and voting reform! People hate change so much it will just never happen.

  9. Dreamlin profile image65
    Dreamlinposted 3 years ago

    No, I think it's a bad idea. Not that I don't want to vote, I hope my vote go to the right contender. Look at those nominees, and the ads they print. They don’t say anything about what they have already done or what they will do for the people. They simply put their faces and names out there and demand you to vote for them. Even if they make a promise, will they follow thru? Do voter really get what they want? Frankly, that is not the way to get my attention and vote. Those applicants care not about small people like us. Most of them are lawyers, who merely want wealth and power to dominate others. If you read the Memoir "The Price of a Lie" (http://dreamlin.hubpages.com/hub/Reversal-of-Destiny, http://dreamlin.hubpages.com/hub/Revers … l-Part-One) you will understand my point. In this true story, New Jersey attorney John Zunic (Cedar Grove councilman, former mayor, Municipal Prosecutor for Fairview NJ, twice competes for New Jersey State Senate Seat). He lies, cheats, and helps criminals prosecute innocents. He abuses his power and knowledge, violates the law, yet he tries desperately to become a prominent political figure, and lead the nation. Think of it, this country is congested with power hungering monsters like him. They steal your vote in the name of making your voice count, and raise themselves to a position that no one can touch. Really good people don't want to go into politics, because everyone knows it's dirty. If you really want to change the nation, change the world for the better, take actions, help out those in need directly. Don't waste your money and time on the dirty politicians. They do nothing but talk the big talk and waste taxpayers' money. Every 4 years, you get to choose a different leader, but has your life become better? No matter who you put into the big office, small, powerless citizens are forever at the bottom, and get their interests sacrificed. Nowadays, don't put your hope, future and trust into the hands of politicians. Remember this old saying, "Heaven helps those who help themselves". Only you can change your own life. Don't fall into the politicians' trap, be smart, be independent, and trust no one else, but yourself.
    If they really hunger for our vote, why not pay cash to the voters, so we can all get some benefit before they took the office and start wasting our tax money. We should not pay them to get into the office, it should be the other way around, that's called serving the people!

    1. JPac1 profile image61
      JPac1posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I like your idea about paying the voters! smile Wouldn't that be nice...
      I wonder... is the issue ignorance? If voters were more invested in getting to the bottom of political debates... understanding proposals, wouldn't content and dialogue improve?

  10. profile image59
    peter565posted 3 years ago

    YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!

    1. JPac1 profile image61
      JPac1posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Why? Does it not violate a right to refuse to vote? Can a democratic government mandate participation in the voting process?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)