Poll: How Important Are Video Game Issues When Deciding Who To Vote For?

It’s that time again.

Yep, election time.  That wonderful time of year when polling agencies call you six times every day no matter how many “no call” lists you put yourself on or what sadistic threats you make over the phone.  They just keep calling.  And calling.  And calling.

It won’t stop.  They won’t leave me alone.  Why won’t you leave me alone?  I just want you to leave me alone!  ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!


So this week’s poll inquires how important video game issues such as net neutrality, cybersecurity, game regulation, game taxes and the like are to you when casting your vote.  Apologies to our young and international readers; I’ll try to have a more inclusive poll next week.  But hey, don’t feel shy about opining in the comments or sending us email at SuperPACPodcast@gmail.com anyway.

Tune in to next week’s podcast and we’ll discuss the poll results and any stupendous comments you send our way.

"vote label" © Tribalium / Shutterstock. All rights reserved, used with permission.

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Contributing Editor Andrew Eisen


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Mr. Blond says:

    It's important to me (it's one reason why I'm voting for Gary Johnson instead of Mitt Romney), but not as important as it used to be. I'm not worried about regulation anymore because of Brown v. EMA, and it takes a whole lot to overturn such a sweeping legal precedent.

    However, I am still worried about SOPA-like laws coming up. Right now, that's more pressing than regulation of violent content.

  2. 0
    Hevach says:

    Though, this is a good reason why, if you're worried about video games (or most civil rights issues), Supreme Court appointments should be one of your biggest election issues.

    On the subject of Brown vs. EMA: It was a 7-2 decision, which is pretty lopsided. However, by the end of the next Presidential term, a similar issue reaching the court could be as little as a 5-4 decision to overturn, if the winner of this election held similar views and considered it in his appointments (or just goes whole hog and picks partisan mouthpieces, which is far from unprecedented). And if that president is reelected, or at least followed by a like minded president, that could very well be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision to uphold in eight years.

    Stare decisis isn't a particularly strong thing when it comes to the Supreme Court. It's supposed to be, and historically has been, but the appropriate reasons to go against a previous decision (cultural change, new arguments bringing issue into a new light, negative impact of previous decision) are highly subjective and can apply to almost any decision at any time, especially in times like currently, when the Court has been especially partisan and is treated more as a tool of the administration than the judiciary.

  3. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    You must be new around these parts. The Supreme Court in 2010 ruled that video games could not be regulated based on rating or content, that does not fall under the current definition of obscene. 

    The Ruling was in response to a California law that attempted regulated violent video games in the same way as porn. With this ruling in place, the Federal Government will not be able to get far with any kind of game related regulation.  

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  4. 0
    Imautobot says:

    Regulation of the game industry hasn't thus far kept games out of the hands of gamers.  Even in the cases where a minor wants an M-rated game, they can always seem to find an adult willing to buy it for them.  It's been the same with the rated movie and the parental advisery music.  And it's no different than drugs, if people want it, they'll find a way to get it.  If anything, this kind of regulation more than likely will create more people willing to steal for it.  Thank God ESRB rules aren't yet enforced with the strictness of Alcohol and Tobacco laws, otherwise things would be a lot worse.

    It does boil down to a free speech issue.  Assuming our supreme court has any sense (which is debateable since Citizens United), they'll never have any federal legislation against the gaming industry, or enact laws restricting online free speech.

  5. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    Not necessarily video games but Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is very important to me. I consider it the most important aspect of Liberty and our most important Individual right and freedom.

    All I know is both the Democrats and Republicans are equally bad in this aspect and will do anything to stifle this most important of rights. The closest thing to a pro-free speech party is the Libertarians.

  6. 0
    CodeMonkey76 says:

    I think a lot of times their viewpoints on issues like these really tells how well they understand technology issues (or at least, which lobbyist they're listening too more).  When most of Congress is made up of senior citizens, I think we should be worried about who is keeping up with the times with regard to technology.  

  7. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    I didn't vote vital as, well, it's not vital, but I see it as pretty important because it might give a window to how one sees free speech issues.

    Plus, well, the greatest should be judged on how they treat the smallest.

Leave a Reply