Do you vote? Why or why not?

[Back]

In 2004 I did a couple of “Vote” posters, and now its time for a new series. Was having a conversation tonight with some people about it and we were kind of split on the reasons people vote, or do not vote.

So I'd like to put the question to the PC community.

For myself, I have been voting since I was 18 on everything from state legislature to president. I think for the most part that it was instilled in me that being able to vote was a luxury not everyone can afford. That one small voice in the population can rise with others and makes big things happen.

Why do you vote, or, why do you NOT vote?

[radamanthys]

Shit... I've been voting since I was young. I would find people and bribe them 5 bucks to vote the republican candidate. My vote at work, eh?

Kidding. However I vote in everything from school board to presidental.

[ElanthianSiren]

I vote in every election. From the time I was quite young, my family impressed the view that voting is the most important right we're afforded. Later, I began to feel that those that bitch about government and choose not to vote don't deserve to bitch, so I vote to maintain my liscense to criticize and offer "suggestions".

-M

[Back]

lol. Yes, I am all about constructive criticism.

But to be honest, I am near the point of revolution with this administration.

[Wezas]

I registered in high school and have voted in every presidential and a few interim elections.

So, 1996, 2000, 2004, and I think 2002

[Back]

Why?

[Daniel]

No, Because in all reality my vote doesn't mean shit. It usually boils down to a choice between Douche bag A and Douche bag B, and in either case they are both at the whim of the bureocracy that they are elected into.

I'd much rather effective a change on a substantive level by promoting the ideas I'd want to see implemented in a way that actually works or just plain going out and doing the shit myself.

That said, if I a Candidate ran that I honestly believed was above the bullshit that is politics and actually serious about doing serious things than I'd probably vote. At this point I'm talking about John Mccain or Obama. There's probably more but I truthfully won't bother to learn about them until they're actually in a position to actually have a shot @ winning.

[Warriorbird]

I vote. Early and often.

[Nilandia]

I've voted in every Presidential election that I've been eligible for. That only makes two, though.

I make it a point only to vote for a candidate whose stance I'm familiar with. I prefer to vote for a person, not against another, nor by party lines. It's for that reason that I'm a registered independent.

Gretchen

[Tisket]

I vote. However, I also feel that if someone takes little interest in politics and economics and spends little time trying to understand how policies would work and affect them, then it is perfectly acceptable and responsible for them not to vote.

I also don't make the leap that low voter turnout somehow threatens democracy as some would have us believe...

[Wezas]

I vote because I want to change the policies of the country to more of what I have in mind as being right/fair. Which I imagine is why alot of people vote.

The Election in 2000 and 2004 make it even more clear to me how important my vote is. Especially with Virginia getting closer and closer to not being a "red always" state.

[Stanley Burrell]

I vote because I believe that just like the many times I have observed voting microcosms being swayed by just one or two votes, I hold the same immature and naive agenda to half a billion people with a regime that has selective tallying.

[Skirmisher]

I vote. Early and often.

Must be from Chicago!

[Skirmisher]

No, Because in all reality my vote doesn't mean shit. It usually boils down to a choice between Douche bag A and Douche bag B, and in either case they are both at the whim of the bureocracy that they are elected into.

I'd much rather effective a change on a substantive level by promoting the ideas I'd want to see implemented in a way that actually works or just plain going out and doing the shit myself.

Hrm.

I would think Bush would have shown just how messed up a job the wrong man can do. Sure, neither candidate may be the dream candidate we would like, but the wrong one has just so many opportunities to do harm that to not vote is I think a horrible mistake.

[Jenisi]

I vote because I have an opinion, and it's a great way to show mine.

[Augie]

I pre-registered to vote when I was 17 and got my card at 18. I've voted ever since I've been able to. I have voted in each presidential election since I was 18 and I've also actively participated in campaigns at college to spread the word on presidential candidates.

I think that no matter how small someone may feel, all of the voices together can make a difference. Not everyone has the ability to vote and I feel that this can help me offer my opinion.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes. It would be horribly disrespectful not to.

[Back]

I’m starting to get really curious as to why people DONT vote. People who don’t probably don’t want to talk about it publicly for fear of embarrassment.

The reasons I can think of that make people decide not to vote would be (in no particular order):

The hassle. Having to disrupt your daily routine. Trying to decide to go vote before, during or after work/school. The location of the polling station may be inconvenient. The long lines.

Intimidation. Not thinking you know enough about politics/issues to make a decision.

Apathy. Thinking your vote does not matter. Everyone else is voting so its no big deal if you don’t.

Mistrust. Thinking the polls are fixed anyway. Thinking that even if you vote the politicians are going to do what they want, not what you vote them in to do. Your party just plain sucks and you are not inspired to vote for them.

In 2004, roughly 122+ million people voted. Estimated population of the US is close to 300 million. If you look at population totals vs. how many people voted per state, its very close to being roughly half across the board.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Estimated population of the US is close to 300 million.>>

Estimated population of the US that is eligible to vote: at least 50 million less than 300 million.

[Miss X]

I've voted at every General (our version of presidential) and Local election since I have been eligible to vote. I vote for a few reasons. Firstly, to express my support for left wing policies and governments. Secondly, there are women who died in the process of fighting for our right to vote and I feel that neglecting that right shows no respect to their memory. Thirdly, if you are able but do not vote, your opinion about how much you hate the Government or disagree with policies becomes worthless. You didn't vote so shut the hell up and live with it.

An example of this is my Stepfather, who hates our current left wing (ish) Government. He will bleat on about it constantly BUT he didn't vote at the last General election. I just don't understand it, if you don't like something and have the chance to vote against it, do it.

[Gan]

I've been voting since I was first able to register back in 88.

I vote because as a responsible citizen, thats part of the gig.

I also vote because I have an opinion and thats one way that I can voice that opinion. No one can take that away from me as long as I remain a law abiding citizen, and alive.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'd also like to add that being granted a right does not mean in any way that you are encouraged to exercise that right. Not voting is about as bad as staying away from firearms (failure to exercise Amendment II).

[Latrinsorm]

I'd also like to add that being granted a right does not mean in any way that you are encouraged to exercise that right.We're not a gun-ocracy though, while we are a republic. Our entire system of government is based on the premise of people voting. In that sense, not voting is tantamount to sedition (or anarchy promotion, if we wanted to be less inflammatory). It's not that we have a right to vote, therefore we must; rather, it's that we must vote, therefore we have a right to vote.

A possible objection, as voiced in this thread, is that neither candidate is qualified to lead the country, therefore abstention is required. This is a logical fallacy (namely false dichotomy): there are in fact more than two choices in every election, though they may not be listed on the ballot.

[Skirmisher]

I'd also like to add that being granted a right does not mean in any way that you are encouraged to exercise that right. Not voting is about as bad as staying away from firearms (failure to exercise Amendment II).

I'm sorry but that is just a horrible analogy.

[Tisket]

I’m starting to get really curious as to why people DONT vote.

Zombies:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30397

[Jolena]

I did not vote in the last Presidential election, but normally I vote for everything I am able to. I did not vote in the last election because I did not feel either candidate was worth a damn and refused to cast my vote in FOR either. I do vote normally because it is my way of making my mark on the world in some small way, even if it isn't going to 'change everything' alone, it can add to the chance of change at the very least.

[Daniel]

Skirm, I disagree. I don't think any of the past 4 election (since I started paying attention) would you have seen a remarkable difference between the elected candidates and the issues I care about.

Also, I don't think Bush is that bad of a man. I know alot of people think hes a devils incarnate, but I don't.

In all reality I can at least respect him for doing where others would have done nothing, a personal pet peeve of mine. Now, when it comes to the way he brings people around him and does things like cut the VA budget when hes trying to start wars..than thats another issue.

[Skirmisher]

Skirm, I disagree. I don't think any of the past 4 election (since I started paying attention) would you have seen a remarkable difference between the elected candidates and the issues I care about.

Also, I don't think Bush is that bad of a man. I know alot of people think hes a devils incarnate, but I don't.

In all reality I can at least respect him for doing where others would have done nothing, a personal pet peeve of mine. Now, when it comes to the way he brings people around him and does things like cut the VA budget when hes trying to start wars..than thats another issue.

I don't see Bush as so much "bad" as horribly flawed.

The combination of ignorance, feelings of entitlement and hubris have done tremendous damage to the US both internally and in our standing in the global community.

Does he do what he thinks is right? I'm sure.

But when what you think is right is just so far off base, sometimes things would have better off having done nothing at all.

I can not say for certain any more than anyone else could that Kerry would have done a better job, but I do tend to think he would have been hard pressed to do worse.

We'll see soon enough with the upcoming elections how the country is feeling about things I guess.

[Daniel]

The combination of ignorance, feelings of entitlement and hubris

^

You just succintly described almost every single politician in my book

[Aaysia]

I did not vote in the last Presidential election, but normally I vote for everything I am able to. I did not vote in the last election because I did not feel either candidate was worth a damn and refused to cast my vote in FOR either.

This is why I don't vote in my country :)

[Latrinsorm]

Again, the "neither candidate is any good" excuse is a cop-out. It's not like it's a big surprise who the candidates are on election day.

[Aaysia]

That's just it here though. Two parties both filled with jackasses. You pick for either/or. Both fuck up when they're in government and think only of themselves. It really would make no difference who you choose since they're both corrupt. If someone rises to the occasion and convinces me that they'll do a great job of running the country, then I'll vote. Until then, I won't waste time or effort picking between dumb and dumber.

[Bobmuhthol]

It sounds to me like you don't deserve to live under any government that's willing to let you live.

[Aaysia]

Yeah, talk out of your ass like you usually do Bob.

A government is supposed to work FOR the people. Not to benefit themselves. Right now neither party in my country has shown me that they really care about the general public. Until that changes I'm not going to waste my time in voting. And that (for the second time) is why I don't vote.

[Back]

Yeah, talk out of your ass like you usually do Bob.

A government is supposed to work FOR the people. Not to benefit themselves. Right now neither party in my country has shown me that they really care about the general public. Until that changes I'm not going to waste my time in voting. And that (for the second time) is why I don't vote.

Just curious how things are going to change by not voting? I’m not trying to slam you... along with the right to vote, people also have the right not to vote if they don’t want to.

[Bobmuhthol]

Yeah, be a fucking idiot, Aaysia, and just fuck off.

That ends that.

[Aaysia]

Just curious how things are going to change by not voting? I’m not trying to slam you... along with the right to vote, people also have the right not to vote if they don’t want to.

How would it change anything for me if I don't support the views of either party?

[Bobmuhthol]

There are always more than two political parties in any sort of democratic government.

[Kefka]

Not voting is a form of protest. We were also given that right.

[Aaysia]

There are always more than two political parties in any sort of democratic government.

There isn't here. But please do go on speaking like you know exactly wtf is going on about everything :)

[Bobmuhthol]

It contradicts democracy to withhold options.

[Artha]

There isn't here.
Where do you live?

[Aaysia]

Trinidad

[Sean of the Thread]

Don't give Bob too much shit.. he is just young dumb and full of cum at this point. You prolly were not much different at his age.

[RichardCranium]

I don't vote because I'm a convicted felon.

[Bobmuhthol]

Trinidad employs a two-party system in a liberal democratic government.

"A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate the voting in nearly all elections."

I'm pretty sure that doesn't say, "It is illegal to have another party."

More than two political parties can exist in all democracies.

[Latrinsorm]

Not voting is a form of protest.A particularly stupid form of protest, akin to holding your breath until you pass out.

If everyone's so disillusioned with the dominant parties' candidates (and being a registered independent is a great way to propogate that, btw), start a party of your own already. This really isn't that hard.

[Kefka]

A particularly stupid form of protest, akin to holding your breath until you pass out.

If everyone's so disillusioned with the dominant parties' candidates (and being a registered independent is a great way to propogate that, btw), start a party of your own already. This really isn't that hard.

Strictly your opinion. I have a feeling this form of protest will dominate this coming election.

[Alfster]

I’m starting to get really curious as to why people DONT vote. People who don’t probably don’t want to talk about it publicly for fear of embarrassment.



I'm not in the least bit embarrased to say that I'm far to lazy to vote.

[Gan]

Strictly your opinion. I have a feeling this form of protest will dominate this coming election.

1. I bet you're wrong. I think this upcoming 2006/2008 election season will show quite the opposite because of the antics of the current leadership. I know many people who neglected to vote because they thought George would be elected again thus skipping out on their opinion of not really making a difference in how the decision comes out. It will be interesting to compare the final tally and see how the popular vote compares to 2004, 2000 elections. Specifically the 2000 election totals since it was not an incumbent election nor was it very dissimilar in many people's perspective of finally getting rid of Billary Clinton et. al.

2. If in fact you happen to be correct, then by and large there should not be many complaints of the leadership that gets elected then by the populace. In my mind, if you did not vote then you really do not have any ground to stand on for complaining about how things turned out.

[Jazuela]

Voting is a right, not an obligation. No citizen of the USA is required to vote. Anyone who has issues with that fact is more than welcome to lobby to get the Constitutional law changed. If they're not willing to do that, then they have no cause to complain about people who exercise their right to NOT vote.

I used to vote in every election that applied to me - local, federal, even various rules and regs of the town I lived in at any given time. Now I only vote on specific issues, and not for people. When I find someone I actually want to see win an election, someone who I feel I can trust enough to put my life and livelihood in their hands, I'll vote for him or her. I went through the list of candidates last federal election. I saw something like 30+ listed candidates. There were a couple who seemed interesting, but I ruled them out because they were vehemently against something I was vehemently for, or vice versa.

In the locals, there used to be a "no-vote" option in the voting booth, so you could make a very clear protest against everyone running by casting an actual vote for no one. You can't do that anymore, but if it was an option I would certainly use it, because making your opinion known is important. The government, however, doesn't feel the same. And until they do, I just plain won't vote if I don't see a candidate I feel deserves to win.

[Sean of the Thread]

>>then they have no cause to complain about people who exercise their right to NOT vote.<<

They have every right to complain.

[Daniel]

Again, the "neither candidate is any good" excuse is a cop-out. It's not like it's a big surprise who the candidates are on election day.

^

Which is exactly my point. I'm not saying I won't vote, I'm saying that as of today I have never felt strongly enough about a candidate to vote. The fact is, whether I like it or not two different D-bags, but both D-bags nonetheless are going to run for president. Everyone else is just there to stroke their ego because we know, and they know, that there is no way in hell that they will ever have a chance of winning.

That's the way things are.

I don't resign myself to not making a difference for this country, but just realize that I'm far less likely to make a difference trying to change American voting precendent, than in other ways.

[Bobmuhthol]

It isn't entirely impossible to change things.

Since the American Revolution, governmental power and structure has continually changed. It's the mindset that the election process is at an absolute concrete state that inhibits further change.

[Daniel]

>2. If in fact you happen to be correct, then by and large there should not be many complaints of the leadership that gets elected then by the populace. In my mind, if you did not vote then you really do not have any ground to stand on for complaining about how things turned out.

I completely disagree.

If a third party actually had a chance at running in this country (and winning) Then you might have a point. However, I don't have to neccessarily bitch about the guy who is elected, but about the two guys I had to "choose" from.

In my mind John Kerry is just an equal douche bag as Bill clinton, George Bush and Al gore. I don't think Bob Dole was such a goober, but then again I think he was an asshat in alot of things. The american system is set up in such a way that you literally have to suck dick for decades (Or if you're a Kennedy then you don' thave to worry about it because your family has pre-paid for a couple of generations) to become President and quite frankly, anyone who can rise the ranks of the American Legal system is pretty suspect to me in the first place, barring a few notable exceptions that I already mentioned.

However, the sad reality is that both of them would probably be blackballed for dumb inconsequential shit if they ever actually ran.

[Daniel]

Bob. The President himself has very little influence on the structure of the government. He's just the guy at the top thinking hes steering the course.

The reality is that the country is run by bureucrats and people with influence that are constantly vying against each other over bullshit.

Without the blessing of Congress the President has the ability to do jack and shit. (Look at clinton under the Republican Congress) And guess who runs congress? The people with the money who can finance the campaigns.

If you really want to effect a change in the country there are much better avenues than depending on the President to do it.

[Bobmuhthol]

Congress is an elected body. The citizens of the United States run Congress.

[Daniel]

Lets take a single issue and analysis it to see if the results of the last elections would have made any difference: Iraq.

John Kerry was adamently against pulling troops out of Iraq. He made those claims early on in his campaign but later on he began to realize that doing so would have been political (if not literal) suicide, detrimental to US interests and largely impossible given a republican controlled congress.

Therefore, his main campaign idea to get us out of Iraq was to create more special forces soldiers to fill the role of trainers and advisers so less troops would be needed to do the same missions.

However, lets look at reality.

Reality 1) We have an all volunteer Army. That means you can't pull 1million people off the streets and say "Hey, you're gonna be special forces and going to Iraq." The Army as it is, has significant recruitment problems for its regular force and even more so in the special operations community. It's gotten so bad that DA had to create a special re-enlistment incentive for special operation troops because of the high rate of attrition and to attract the neccessary levels of troops needed to maintain pre-kerry levels.

So where exactly would he have gotten the people to fill this role?

Reality 2) You can not will special forces troops out of your ass. The usual timeframe for a soldier to go from Civilian to fully trained and capable special operation soldier is well over 2 years. That means, even if elected we'd be looking at, at least another 6-7 months before the first crop of SF soldiers became ready to go fight. That also means that you'd have the trainers neccessary to get these people up to par. Where do they come from? Good question, refer to Reality 1.

-----

What all that means is that regardless of who the president was, the war would have continued at the same pace and in the same manner that it has been. (Or do you honestly think the president is sitting behind his desk saying..Hey I want first battalion to step up its efforts in the eastern part of Kirkuk) Mainly because by 2004 there were no other options available except to continue supporting the Iraqi efforts to build and sustain a functioning government.


So what exactly am I voting for again?

[Daniel]

Congress is an elected body. The citizens of the United States run Congress.

Well Bob. You go try and run a successful congressional run against an established politican and see how you do. Then once you get elected tell me how far you get trying to get your bills and proposals to the congressional floor and voted on.

[Aaysia]

Trinidad employs a two-party system in a liberal democratic government.

"A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate the voting in nearly all elections."

I'm pretty sure that doesn't say, "It is illegal to have another party."

More than two political parties can exist in all democracies.

In the past there have been other parties to choose from. Those are no longer in existance. I never said it was illegal to have another party. I also fail to see what relevance this has to my stance on voting.

[Bobmuhthol]

If one person could singlehandedly revolutionize the country, we wouldn't have much of a stable nation. I never said one person should attempt it, and I fully understand the effort that must be put forth to make the slightest change.

But that's also why nothing is being done: the effort isn't there. It's a lot of hard work, and not enough people are making enough noise.

[Jazuela]

John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan were all third-party candidates who effected change *just by being candidates.* I considered voting for Perot the first time he ran (was it 1990? It was awhile ago, heh). But his charisma started shifting to weirdness near the end of his campaign, and I didn't think he'd be stable enough to handle the job. But boy did he stir shit up in the government. He had the republicans and democrats scurrying, even though he lost by such a margin that he didn't make a dent in most of the electoral vote graphs of that year.

If we could get someone with his passion, but with a little more mental stability, I would certainly take a more serious look at the next election.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<In the past there have been other parties to choose from. Those are no longer in existance. I never said it was illegal to have another party. I also fail to see what relevance this has to my stance on voting.>>

You did say that no other political parties exist, but you're right, you didn't say it was illegal. Whether you know about them or not, I'm sure at least one political party exists in the Republic of Trinidad that is not one of the two dominant parties.

I never claimed democracy to be relevant to your stance on voting. I just said that you have no excuse for not voting because you don't like the candidates. More exist than are being immediately presented to you, whether or not you want to believe it.

[HarmNone]

But that's also why nothing is being done: the effort isn't there. It's a lot of hard work, and not enough people are making enough noise.

QFT

[Aaysia]

To my knowledge there is no other party to vote for but the two options we have now.

If I don't like the candidates because of things they have done in the past while in power I have every right to choose not to vote. I don't need an excuse to excercise that right.

[HarmNone]

To my knowledge there is no other party to vote for but the two options we have now.

There are other parties extant. Not all of them field a candidate for the Presidential election on a regular basis, but they are out there. The Libertarian party came immediately to mind, so I went hunting on Google. Here's a site with a list of political parties in the United States:

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

[Aaysia]

We vote for the party we want in power, their leader is prime minister. The loser makes up the opposition. The cabinet votes for the president. If there are others out there I don't know of them :shrug:

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't know the specifics of the unity of Trinidad and Tobago (specifically, the history behind not having one name), but..

The political parties of Trinidad and Tobago are as follows:
People's National Movement (PNM): In power
United National Congress (UNC): Opposition to PNM
National Alliance for Reconstruction (NAR): Led by Hochoy Charles
Team Unity (TUN): Led by Ramesh Maharaj

NAR and TUN exist. It's your job, as a citizen, to help them gain power.

Another source has indicated the following:

"
Party membership has been to a large extent based on race and region. The PNM is the party of the blacks. The NAR has been more powerful on the island of Tobago, where it has controlled the local assembly. Whites, Chinese, and other minorities have traditionally been anti-PNM. The UNC is made up of predominantly Indians. The other political parties are the Movement for Social Transformation (MOTION), National Joint Action Committee (NJAC), Republican Party, National Development Party (NDP), and the Movement for Unity and Progress (MUP)."

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Trinidad-and-Tobago-POLITICAL-PARTIES.html

[Daniel]

But that's also why nothing is being done: the effort isn't there. It's a lot of hard work, and not enough people are making enough noise.

^

Where exactly did you get that I was suggesting that doing nothing is the appropriate response? I said that there were more effective ways to create a change than voting.

Voting in todays electorial college for a substantial amount of people is an exercise in futility and expending effort for it from my perspective has been a losing cause. That's not to say that things won't change, but I'm not counting on it.

[Bobmuhthol]

Wikipedia gives a great list of the parties and their current status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Trinidad_and_Tobago

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Where exactly did you get that I was suggesting that doing nothing is the appropriate response? I said that there were more effective ways to create a change than voting.>>

This may be true, but any effective method, voting included, depends on the support it gets. Organization needs to take place in a manner that focuses a large crowd's attention to a task that all are willing to be an active part of.

[Aaysia]

the NAR are no longer in existance. Ramesh Maharaj dissolved the TUN and went back to the UNC.

There is only the PNM and the UNC.

Oh and for the previous election where I did actually vote for the TUN those other parties you called weren't options to choose from on the ballot.

[Daniel]

<<Where exactly did you get that I was suggesting that doing nothing is the appropriate response? I said that there were more effective ways to create a change than voting.>>

This may be true, but any effective method, voting included, depends on the support it gets. Organization needs to take place in a manner that focuses a large crowd's attention to a task that all are willing to be an active part of.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Your point is?

If the USA had 100% voter turnout in 2004, you'd still have either Kerry or Bush.

[Bobmuhthol]

Must you choose a PNM or UNC candidate, or are you able to vote for whomever you specify?

I'm hoping for the latter, else Trinidad may be a lost to the depths of non-democracy.

[Aaysia]

Unfortunately it's the former.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Thank you Captain Obvious. Your point is?

If the USA had 100% voter turnout in 2004, you'd still have either Kerry or Bush.>>

My point isn't that more people should vote. It's that more people, especially those who aren't currently voting, should vote for other people and stray away from the dominance of the democrats and republicans. You never like either candidate, and apparently more than one other person has the same view that you do, so take the majority away from the people who currently hold it. By adding in a new popular candidate, it becomes a lot easier to take the majority vote.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Unfortunately it's the former.>>

Then I withdraw my entire argument. Trinidad srsly sux.

[Aaysia]

The government does yea. The parties, beaches, carnival and other fun stuff -- not so much

[Latrinsorm]

Strictly your opinion.Oh right, a form of protest where nobody knows what you're protesting against or what you want changed is a really awesome method, what was I thinking? MLK really had it backwards, he should have had a Million Man Sit At Home, Talk A Good Game, And Not Act For Change. That wouldn't be becoming a co-conspirator to the very problem you claim to oppose at all, no sir!
If they're not willing to do that, then they have no cause to complain about people who exercise their right to NOT vote.I have plenty of "cause" to "complain" about people who don't have the gumption do what they think is right in general. Specific to this situation, unless you'd can prove that the United States is not in fact a republic, you're wrong. Citizens are obligated to vote by the very nature of the system we have.
That's the way things are.There's no chance things will change if you don't vote. There's a slight chance things will change if you organize and vote. Think what a woody all this apathy gives the existing power structure.

How can you people not see this? There's only one way to change the government: revolution. It turns out we have this nifty little thing called a "vote" here in America that we can cast for anyone we want. Beats all hell out of a musket. Apathy isn't a revolution. Apathy is tacit consent.

[Daniel]

It's that more people, especially those who aren't currently voting, should vote for other people and stray away from the dominance of the democrats and republicans.

^

So, we just turned back to my original point. Where would I bother trying to go through all of that when A) the influence the president has is severely limited anyway and B) The expenditure neccessary to do so (Ross Perot and his billions still didn't have a chance of winning), in money and effort would be spent far better trying to effect change in other ways.

[Daniel]

Oh right, a form of protest where nobody knows what you're protesting against or what you want changed is a really awesome method, what was I thinking? MLK really had it backwards, he should have had a Million Man Sit At Home, Talk A Good Game, And Not Act For Change. That wouldn't be becoming a co-conspirator to the very problem you claim to oppose at all, no sir!

^

I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where MLK was having mass voter registrations to effect change.

I mean..voting is the only way to change things right?

There's no chance things will change if you don't vote.

^

I disagree. Organizations such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, Etc have been capable of effecting change regardless of who was the sitting president.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<So, we just turned back to my original point. Where would I bother trying to go through all of that when A) the influence the president has is severely limited anyway and B) The expenditure neccessary to do so (Ross Perot and his billions still didn't have a chance of winning), in money and effort would be spent far better trying to effect change in other ways.>>

Having never successfully overturned the government, I can't answer that. I can take a guess and say, though, that the difficulties that would be faced are because of the lack of dire need for such a drastic change. I'm all for giving the people what they want; it really seems like the country, as a whole, is not terribly and genuinely upset about the government right now.

[Daniel]

Well, Bob. You're a smart individual. Why don't you go look at some of the greatest changes in the history of America and tell me if voting really had anything to do with it.

My suggestions would be in this order:

The American Revolution

The emancipation of African Americans

The advent of Woman's suffrage

The Civil rights movement

Lemme know what you turn up.

[Daniel]

Oh, you can also add Vietnam in there as a case study on the constraints on what a president can actually do, despite his campaign pledges or desires.

[Kefka]

Oh right, a form of protest where nobody knows what you're protesting against or what you want changed is a really awesome method, what was I thinking? MLK really had it backwards, he should have had a Million Man Sit At Home, Talk A Good Game, And Not Act For Change. That wouldn't be becoming a co-conspirator to the very problem you claim to oppose at all, no sir!

Or you can open your eyes and realize that the party you've always supported no longer exists and you'd rather drop dead than vote for the opposition. In this instance, the fiscal conservatives. Many feel betrayed by their leadership. Perhaps you'll keep voting regardless, but not everyone thinks like you. They'd rather sit at home than vote for the other guy. We also have the right to protest. It doesn't have to make sense to you.

[Bobmuhthol]

The American Revolution and its immediate effects first introduced the concept of voting for the single highest position in the US Government: The President of the United States. The strongest belief at that time was that monarchy was inherently corrupt and only a true democracy could survive as a functional nation.

<<The emancipation of African American.>>

This was a result of the common belief held by the Union that slavery must be ended to uphold the integrity of the nation. While there may not have been voting involved, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was issued out of vocalized popular interest.

Again, there aren't enough people working together in any medium to make a change. A focus of interests does not exist that would lead to a direct result. There are multiple "best methods" to fix whatever problem people think exist in the country for each small group trying to make things go their way. If they became one group with a common goal, you'd probably see an actual impact.

[Daniel]

So, in other words you refuse to respond to what I'm actually saying.

Great. Excellent arguments Bob. You obviously have a bright future in politics.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<So, in other words you refuse to respond to what I'm actually saying.>>

I'm sorry that voting was not the cause, but rather the result, of the American Revolution.

You're right. The major events in the United States did not take place because they were voted on. Voting isn't powerless, though.

[Latrinsorm]

Amnesty InternationalGiven that we're perennially basement-dwellers as far as Amnesty International is concerned, I fail to see how they've done anything.
I must have missed the part where MLK was having mass voter registrations to effect change.Yeah, Jim Crow laws were a real pain in the neck, apparently.
The American Revolution
We couldn't vote, so we had to resort to violence. England sucks, no argument here.
The emancipation of African AmericansWhere do you think West Virginia came from?
The advent of Woman's suffrageHow do you think Constitutional Amendments are passed?
The Civil rights movement
1964 Civil Rights Act ring any bells?

You can rally and protest all you want, if you're not voting it's not going to get you anywhere. Why do you think MLK went to DC?
Or you can open your eyes and realize that the party you've always supported I don't support a party. I suggest you do the same.
They'd rather sit at home than vote for the other guy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

[Kefka]

Do you honestly believe there's a third choice?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Do you honestly believe there's a third choice?>>

From the rest of Latrinsorm's last post, I'd say that there is. A lot of people had the same "do you honestly believe this is possible?" mentality regarding some of the most characteristic political breakthroughs in US history.

[Leetahkin]

To answer the original question stated and then make my way back out of the icky political folder...

I vote during Presidental elections.
I do not vote during smaller state/county elections.

Simply put, I feel that if I don't vote, I don't have a right to bitch if the person I voted for doesn't get in and the sitting President is an ass.

I didn't vote for Bush.

[Jazuela]

Sure you have the right to complain about people who don't have the gumption to do what they think is right. I agree with you 100%

Fortunately, I did what I thought was right. I chose to abstain from voting, because I did not want any of the candidates to win.

There's a HUGE difference between apathy, and intentional abstinence. With apathy you don't care who wins, and in that case, you should vote for whichever candidate your finger's closest to in the voting booth. With intentional abstinence, you are stating that you do -not- want -any- of the candidates to win. If they added "none of the above" to the voting booths, I would have voted, and picked that option. Because I wanted the government to know that I wanted a whole new batch of candidates to pick from; I didn't like any of them. Unfortunately the government has chosen not to allow that option. D'ya think maybe it's because they're afraid "none of the above" might actually win some day?

Something to think about; maybe the movie was right.

[Daniel]

<<So, in other words you refuse to respond to what I'm actually saying.>>

I'm sorry that voting was not the cause, but rather the result, of the American Revolution.

You're right. The major events in the United States did not take place because they were voted on. Voting isn't powerless, though.

Way to provide substantive proof to back up your claims.


Given that we're perennially basement-dwellers as far as Amnesty International is concerned, I fail to see how they've done anything.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with them being able to effect the change.

If you are gonna try and say that outside organizations and movements do not have the ability to effect change within the US towards its policies, then do so, but don't try some lame tactic to invalidate the point.


Yeah, Jim Crow laws were a real pain in the neck, apparently.

Where do you think West Virginia came from?

How do you think Constitutional Amendments are passed?


You seem to be missing the point entirely. In each of these circumstances, change was not caused by people going to a poll and voting. It was caused by them going beyond the electorial system to get what they wanted done.

You have said that voting is the only way to effect change..and yet the most significant changes in this countries govermental systems have had absolutely nothing to do with who was in power, but rather with who was challenging the system directly.

The fact that they didn't have to throw our system of governence to the wind is a testiment to why our system works. That doesn't change the fact that voting, especially in presidential elections basicly has no effect on what happens.

Try answering those questions within the context of how VOTING made those things happen. The civil rights amendment wasn't willed out of someones ass one day because they had a bad burrito.

[Latrinsorm]

Do you honestly believe there's a third choice?Looking around, I don't see one. Looking around, I see no Gestapo or black helicopters waiting to disappear you if you make one.

If you want it, go get it. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of silver platters.
I chose to abstain from voting, because I did not want any of the candidates to win.If you really believe that nobody in America (or your state, or your county, or your town) is able to govern effectively, you clearly can't find our system of government viable, and it's up to you to take it down.
I fail to see how that has anything to do with them being able to effect the change.The whole point of a rating system is to say that people who score low should be doing something different. They want us to be doing something different, and yet year after year, we don't. I believe it's possible for extra-American forces to cause effects, but AI apparently isn't one of them.
It was caused by them going beyond the electorial system to get what they wanted done.That's why they split off and started their own country, right?

Oh wait, nobody did that except a bunch of rednecks (and that turned out real well for them). Everyone else worked within the system.

I'm not saying that voting is the genesis of change, that would be people and thought. I'm saying that voting is the only mechanism we can rely on to make what change we want happen in a meaningful way. People have trouble being racially neutral even WITH the Civil Rights Act, imagine what it would be like if we didn't have that. Do you really think women would get to vote everywhere without the 19th Amendment? It's not like the sun decided to plant gender equality in peoples' brains one morning and everyone played along.

[Daniel]

Latrin. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Remember: Voting, and overthrowing the government are not the only options when trying to make a change.

[DeV]

Voting is a right not a requirement of being a citizen.

I vote in every election I possibly can.

[Jazuela]

Latrinsorm, I've said already, that I -have- voted in the past, and that I have not voted recently, because recently I haven't found anyone I wanted to see win an election. At least, not anyone who was a candidate. There are plenty of people I'd love to see in office. But they either have chosen not to run, or didn't get enough signatures to be put on the ballots.

I was very active in the town I used to live in. I worked for the town, and was politically removed. The girl I replaced refused to join the union and was forced out, and I learned I had only been hired until she changed her mind. She did, and I was fired immediately. You'd better believe I got involved in the entire Civil Service process. I was unable to effect any changes though because it was me against the Union (they refused to represent me because even though I was a dues-paying member, I was in my first 6 months of employment and they used that as an excuse to turn my request for investigation down), and the only lawyer willing to tackle the union wanted $5000 retainer in advance. So - I made a little noise here and there, sent a few words to a few people who knew what was going on, and left with most of my dignity still intact. Being the only Jewish employee in a primarily Italian-Catholic town government didn't help matters. But that's politics, and no amount of voting was going to change it.

Who was it who said, something like "Anyone who sincerely wants to be President should be automatically disqualified from running?" If it was up to me, I'd gather all the politicians - lobbyists, the Exxon CEO, government officials, and toss them ALL out on their asses and start over from scratch. It isn't up to me though - and no amount of voting is going to change that.

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, if enough people get together and express a will to their congress persons, that generally sways how congress votes. A long-running example of this has historically been seen in the fight over ANWR and more recently the ammendments to the patriot act. You can also argue that its evidence is seen on the state/county levels of each of the towns that got together and allowed for gay marriage. That is outside of voting, as anyone can express an opinion to representatives.

Further, with the advent of web tracking services for voting records (megavote), it's very easy to tell how congress voted (accountability). Further still, smaller assemblies often vote on issues that may or may not matter to you as a voter of a particular community. I don't see why being burned by the political process once or twice would inhibit a person from voting. Finally, if you disagree with the two main party candidates, you're perfectly free to throw away your vote on a third party to express your dislike. In not voting, you have expressed nothing and condoned the system that chose those candidates by your silence.

I don't think America would be a better place if we removed most capitalism and started over, (re: Jaz's comments on big business), though I do feel that there are a few services that don't function properly under the current capitalistic model (oil is not one of them).

-M
edited because I mentioned oil where I meant to say business.

[Wezas]

Even if I liked neither candidate, I would look at what each one stood for and their voting/opinion past. And I would vote for the one that was most closely related to mine.

It would be ideal if I liked the candidate every time, but when I like neither candidate (and don't feel like throwing my vote away on a retard like Nader) I'll see which candidate has similar ideals to myself.

[Skirmisher]

Even if I liked neither candidate, I would look at what each one stood for and their voting/opinion past. And I would vote for the one that was most closely related to mine.

It would be ideal if I liked the candidate every time, but when I like neither candidate (and don't feel like throwing my vote away on a retard like Nader) I'll see which candidate has similar ideals to myself.

Exactly.