Protesting your vote

[Stubby]

Without leaning either way politically, let me gently remind anyone who believes they should "send a message" to either party by abstaining from the election..... that's stupid.

I won't even go into the whole "it's a privilege to vote" or "it's your duty as a citizen to vote". The fact is, no matter how you slice it, it boils down to two choices:

1. The better candidate :icon_mi_6
2. The worse candidate :icon_mi_5

You can add your vote to one by voting, or the other by not voting.

If you refrain from voting, you may "send a message", but that message is going to be marked "return to sender", and you're going to have live with it until the next election.

 

[WY518]

Very well put Chief!

 

[JIMMY]

ditto

 

[airgreg]

Respectfully disagree completely. Vote or don't vote. It's not a duty, it's a right and a privilige. It's up to you to exercise your rights how you see fit.

Stubby, I'd like to hear a little more on why I am "stupid" for not voting this time around. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase? Before completely dismissing someone else's view as "stupid", maybe we could get a detailed list of why such a thing is "stupid".

 

[robav8r]

.....Absolutely agree that "voting" is your right as a citizen of this great country. And yes, some would argue that it is your duty as well. Regardless, if you don't vote, and don't exercise a right that many in this world do not have, then you forfeit your right to *****, complain, or criticize the process and subsequent results.
:icon_carn

 

[Tex_Hill]

.....Absolutely agree that "voting" is your right as a citizen of this great country. And yes, some would argue that it is your duty as well. Regardless, if you don't vote, and don't exercise a right that many in this world do not have, then you forfeit your right to *****, complain, or criticize the process and subsequent results.
:icon_carn

I disagree with you when it comes to losing the right to complain. If you are a citizen and you pay taxes, then you have a right to complain regardless if you voted or not.

However, if you vote and if the candidate that you voted for wins and later crawfishes on his promises then you can't blame anybody but yourself.

 

[Carno]

When there is someone to vote for, I'll vote.

Right now there are only two choices: the party that wants to control my life (Repubs) and the party of idiots (Dems). I find both parties extremely distasteful and I will not participate in the sham that is our political system.

And I also disagree that you lose the right to complain when you don't vote. **** that. That's garbage. I pay taxes and I contribute to society, and if I see a reason to speak out against something, I will, regardless if I have voted or not.

Voting has absolutely nothing to do with what rights I have. I have the RIGHT to VOTE. Voting itself does not give me my rights. In any case, I absolutely refuse to show support for either party.

 

[Cate]

And I also disagree that you lose the right to complain when you don't vote. **** that. That's garbage. I pay taxes and I contribute to society, and if I see a reason to speak out against something, I will, regardless if I have voted or not.

I disagree. Paying your taxes is like leaving a big bucket of money on on the sidewalk in front of your house. Anybody can walk by and dip into it for any purpose. When you vote, you get to bring that bucket inside, and you get to decide how much money goes in the bucket, who gets that money, and how it's spent. If you don't vote, you don't have the right to say, "Hey, that guy took my bucket and spent all the money on beer!" Well, don't leave the bucket outside next time.

And I'm sorry, if there aren't any candidates you like on the ballot, whose fault is that? We The People nominate the candidates, and We The People vote in the primaries. If you don't like the ballot you've got, actually get involved next time, and maybe there will be.

(But don't get me started on the Electoral College. Blechh...)

 

[Tex_Hill]

I disagree. Paying your taxes is like leaving a big bucket of money on on the sidewalk in front of your house. Anybody can walk by and dip into it for any purpose. When you vote, you get to bring that bucket inside, and you get to decide how much money goes in the bucket, who gets that money, and how it's spent. If you don't vote, you don't have the right to say, "Hey, that guy took my bucket and spent all the money on beer!" Well, don't leave the bucket outside next time.

Well I guess we agree to disagree then.

And I'm sorry, if there aren't any candidates you like on the ballot, whose fault is that? We The People nominate the candidates, and We The People vote in the primaries. If you don't like the ballot you've got, actually get involved next time, and maybe there will be.

Negative, the parties nominate the candidates. The average person with a life and a family has little if any input when it comes to deciding who initially runs for a particular office. Sure, we can vote in the primaries & the general elections, but by then we are usually deciding between the lesser of two evils. Personally, I question any person's motive for running for a public office higher than dog catcher.

 

[Carno]

I disagree. Paying your taxes is like leaving a big bucket of money on on the sidewalk in front of your house. Anybody can walk by and dip into it for any purpose. When you vote, you get to bring that bucket inside, and you get to decide how much money goes in the bucket, who gets that money, and how it's spent. If you don't vote, you don't have the right to say, "Hey, that guy took my bucket and spent all the money on beer!" Well, don't leave the bucket outside next time.

And I'm sorry, if there aren't any candidates you like on the ballot, whose fault is that? We The People nominate the candidates, and We The People vote in the primaries. If you don't like the ballot you've got, actually get involved next time, and maybe there will be.

(But don't get me started on the Electoral College. Blechh...)

Did We The People vote on if we went into Iraq or not? Did We The People vote on whether or not we wanted the Patriot Act? Did We The People vote on anything in regards to how this country is run? Did we really?

Hell no. We have to vote on the lesser of two evils, and then we have to sit back and watch while that person runs the country. We don't actually vote on how this country is run. We vote based on who the two parties nominate as candidates, and then hope that the candidate who is elected as President doesn't **** us over. We absolutely do not vote on how much money we put in the bucket or how that money is spent.

Don't get you started on the Electoral College?? Why the **** not?

 

[Cate]

Y'all The People voted on our current president, who was pretty much determined to go into Iraq sooner or later. Aside from that, though, we end up choosing from the lesser of two evils because we don't expect politicians to be honest, so we don't hold them to any kind of standard. They do what they do because we let them get away with it.

And the way to influence the candidates in an election is to get involved with a party. It's not something that Average Joe doesn't have access to.

The Electoral College is, in my opinion, a terribly outdated system that originated at a time when the aforementioned Average Joe was too uneducated, too busy, or too just plain disinterested to know or care who was running the country. There were no organized political parties (not that there really are now), and travel was a biznitch. Within their own states, everyone chose an elector, the smart guy in town, usually the guy who owned the bank or the guy who was always reading, a guy they could count on to pick the candidate best for them, and sent him off to Washington, saying, "Pick us a good president, now!"

It's not like that now. People are informed (or, rather, have every opportunity to be, whether or not they choose to). We've got more news media than we can possibly absorb in a week (and some of it even tells news). We have access to every bit of information about every candidate short of what he actually intends to do when he gets in office (but we can usually guess that). The Electoral College serves no good purpose, but does screw things up by leaving an open opportunity for the will of the people to be overridden by the electoral vote, and is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and their ability to elect their president directly.

(Direct elections would also make it easier for third-party candidates to get a foothold, which would be a good thing and solve a lot of the problems you've just complained about. And since every state would suddenly be a swing state, politicians would no longer be able to just campaign in Ohio and Iowa and tell people what they want to hear.)

 

[Brett327]

Y'all The People voted on our current president, who was pretty much determined to go into Iraq sooner or later. Aside from that, though, we end up choosing from the lesser of two evils because we don't expect politicians to be honest, so we don't hold them to any kind of standard. They do what they do because we let them get away with it.

And the way to influence the candidates in an election is to get involved with a party. It's not something that Average Joe doesn't have access to.

The Electoral College is, in my opinion, a terribly outdated system that originated at a time when the aforementioned Average Joe was too uneducated, too busy, or too just plain disinterested to know or care who was running the country. There were no organized political parties (not that there really are now), and travel was a biznitch. Within their own states, everyone chose an elector, the smart guy in town, usually the guy who owned the bank or the guy who was always reading, a guy they could count on to pick the candidate best for them, and sent him off to Washington, saying, "Pick us a good president, now!"

It's not like that now. People are informed (or, rather, have every opportunity to be, whether or not they choose to). We've got more news media than we can possibly absorb in a week (and some of it even tells news). We have access to every bit of information about every candidate short of what he actually intends to do when he gets in office (but we can usually guess that). The Electoral College serves no good purpose, but does screw things up by leaving an open opportunity for the will of the people to be overridden by the electoral vote, and is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate and their ability to elect their president directly.

(Direct elections would also make it easier for third-party candidates to get a foothold, which would be a good thing and solve a lot of the problems you've just complained about. And since every state would suddenly be a swing state, politicians would no longer be able to just campaign in Ohio and Iowa and tell people what they want to hear.)

While you make some good points, there are a lot of misconceptions in your post about how our political system works. It's a shame I'm too busy to write a thoughtful response right now. I'm such a tease.

Brett

 

[thenuge]

Not voting. My views are not represented, period. Dems carry my district by a landslide anyway. Even if I did care and voted one way or the other, Dems would carry it by 70%. Don't care anymore.

 

[snake020]

It is too bad we can't do "none of the above" as a write in choice.

 

[robav8r]

You absolutely DO NOT have the right (in my opinion of course), to complain about the electoral process if you don't participate. Throughout history, the beginning of tyranny started with apathy for the ruling power and administration. You know, you're right - stay home, don't vote, let someone else decide the fate of the country. And when the results don't meet your high expectations, blame it on the system and the candidates themselves.