Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Voting "none of the above", or not voting at all, is never in one's interests because you are relinquishing your ability to influence which candidate is chosen. Since it's a sure thing that some candidate is going to be elected, it makes no sense not to vote for any of them. Everybody has a preference, even if that preference is a write-in, a third party candidate, the voter him/herself... We should make our preferences heard on every election day.
|
The other options you give also make me relinquish my ability to influence which candidate is chosen. What difference would it make if i voted for a write-in (lets say myself) than from not voting at all? Both methods show the candidates that i don't want to vote for them.
Also, unless i'm mistaken, it's not a sure thing that one of the candidates will be elected. Don't they need to have above a certain percentage of votes to win? If no candidate gets at or above that percentage then they have to re-run the election? I'm not sure about that, but that was my understanding. I can see how voting a write-in/3rd party would help in that instance, but a "none of the above" option would yield the same result, so it is a valid option that should be explored.
The choice of not voting is heard just as loudly as that single vote would be. Generalizing people who do not vote as "too lazy to vote" is a dangerous thing to do.
Quote:
|
In regards to the snide Constitution comment about free speech, I suggest you look at the first amendment and begin by reading the first five words, repeatedly if necessary. You have no constitutional right to free speech.
|
I am well aware what the wording is, and last i checked, there have been no new laws saying that i can't complain about my elected officials (be they from congress, or otherwise). My response may have seemed a little "snide", but it was just as "snide" as the remark it was meant to counter. No more, no less.
And the good folks at Cornell seem to disagree with you about there being no right to free speech:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html
Quote:
|
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
|
So it isnt just protection from congress, it is protection on the entire federal government level, *as well as* state government level. So while it says "
Congress shall make no law" it goes far beyond congress. If you disagree you will need to take it up with the supreme court, because they say otherwise. *shrugs*
Jesus loves everyone. For confirmation of that fact i suggest you begin by reading the new testament, repeatedly if necessary. I love you too, brother.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
Furthermore, I still don't agree in any case because representatives are representatives of ALL citizens, not just the ones who voted, and everyone has the right to complain about who's representing them regardless of whether they voted for that person. Would you also say I don't have the right to complain about representatives I voted for because I voted for them? In my view, those statements are more or less equivalent.
|
^--- i agree ---^
And will use n0nsensical's quote to answer:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Complaining about the candidate who wins an election after one has neglected to fulfill one's duty of helping to select the winner is useless, futile, unnecessary whining.
|
(even though politicophile's quote may have been an answer to n0nsensical's quote (?), politicophile's statement is adequately countered by n0nsensical's)
Just because someone gets elected to office does not mean they are no longer answerable to the people they represent.. and the people they represent are not just those who voted for them, but everyone under their jurisdiction.
It is far from useless and futile to complain to/about your elected officials. If you don't complain, how do they know if they're doing a good job or not? How will anyone know if someone is worth re-electing?
Yea, there's the local stuff that needs voting That is worth the effort, because at the local level the individual vote actually carries weight.
I'm not saying for everyone to just not vote. I'm saying that if you feel that your vote will not do any good, and/or that you have no candidate to vote for.. and/or if none of those yes/no questions really apply to you.. then, why bother?
This post was probably confusing.. Its hard for me to put my feelings into words because there were so many angles to cover in this reply. My "button" was pushed, and my patience with this reply is running low.. maybe i'll come back and edit/repost once i've had time to order my thoughts, because they're flying allover the place right now.
I'm not even sure why I'm going ahead with this post, but politicophile's post begged *some* reply.