Which would be... educated nothing? Sounds like a bullshit excuse.

Hell, vote for Alice Cooper. Vote for Big Bird. Vote for SOMEBODY.

You're a number at a poll and you're saying you don't like your choices.

I don't care how educated you are... doing nothing is doing nothing.

I'll take a motivated moron over a do-nothing genius every time.

Crompsin, why vote for anybody if you don't agree with them? You are making their right to govern you legitimate. I know it isn't quite an extreme a choice but you have a choice between voting for Hitler's Nazi party or Stalin's Communist party who would you vote for? Would you abstain then?

Yes, and no. These early primaries cause some candidates to drop out and other states never get a chance to support any of the full range of original candidates. The general election is another story and historical voting patterns by state have already been upset this last month. Madison, nothing is inevitable, particularly in politics.

Just ask Hillary Clinton OR Barack Obama tonight.

I honestly believe that in 2008 I will walk into the voting booth, cast my votes, and leave the line for the presidential ticket blank. There is one third-party primary candidate who I am willing to vote for, he is third in his party, and I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of a system which gives me 19 choices with which I disagree strongly enough to discount the possibility of picking one. At this point, the only way I can see myself voting is if the world turns upside-down, the Republicans nominate Huckabee or Paul, and I feel obliged to cast a vote against one of them.

Yeah, while I don't want to hand my "Not A Genius" title over to you... the premise of voting for either of those is a little goofy. Fascists and communists don't vote at all... which is why they aren't democratic. Abstaining from voting is something with which their citizen slaves didn't have issues.

Of course I get your point... but let's not make an Everest out of a pimple.

...

Did I say vote for anybody? I meant vote for somebody. I would hope somebody would necessitate someone on the ballot, but if not... put somebody in who you prefer. Hell, I could get all silly and put Howard Dean down for my vote.

BTW, Shani, it's especially important that you vote because you're smart. We have to offset the others.

...LIKE ME!

*votes for Bush / Cheney '08*

This is a good point -- it is important to represent your demographic too. Even casting a blank ballot is better than not showing up.

Back in 2004 before the election I had one of my staff members ask what are republicans and democrats (she was about 23 and married) and another state she always votes for women because they are women.

Sometimes its best when people don't vote.

Voting is the very least of our obligations as a responsible citizenry. Umm, one moment while I prepare to shout out loud.

VOTING IS THE VERY LEAST OF OUR OBLIGATIONS AS A RESPONSIBLE CITIZENRY!

Get active, dammit! You don't like it? Work to change it!

We have way too many passive whiners in this country. Choose not to be just another one.

Got that, Shani?

Elphaba, who says MSD is not doing what he can to change what he doesn't like? Voting for any of the 19 candidates he disagrees with won't do anything to help that though. And you're kidding yourselves if you think the candidates give a damn about how many write-in candidates there are. So long as someone is paying attention to the issues and making reasonably educated decisions, and voting when they have something to vote for, I'm perfectly fine with people abstaining on items where they see nothing to support.

(Still, I would echo the recommendation to vote for a third party candidate - ANY third party candidate - in that case, simply to promote a more varied public debate.)

Wow. I think that just gave me an erection. :thumbsup:

Sheesh... Where did I criticize anyone about how they choose to vote or not vote? I simply took MSD's post as a continuation point of the discussion.

Is this a better post for y'all?

*Vote*

Or do you see some sort of unfair criticism with one word of those that choose not to vote? :rolleyes:


That probably just gave me another warning... kinda hot, no erection. :D

Yeah, the cool part about democracy is how we can casually erode it away without getting into trouble... either by voting for douchebags or not voting at all.

...delete major thread jack and obvious cougar hit on Crompsin.

Grandma Puma

MSD said he can't support pretty much any of the candidates running for president, including all but one third party candidate, and explained that because of that he probably won't vote in the presidential race. In response, you "shout[ed] out loud" and told him to choose not to be another "passive whiner." I didn't even respond with any negativity, so I'm not sure why you took offense. I simply pointed out that there are a number of things besides voting in the presidential election that MSD may or may not be doing to effect change, and so there's no reason at all for anyone to implore him to vote and not to be a "passive whiner" when he has no options to vote for that he supports. Being educated about not only the main candidates but also the the third party candidates and then making a decision that he can't support any of them is not being a passive whiner, it's refusing the put his name behind someone he doesn't support.

Perhaps you didn't mean your post to be in direct response to MSD, but in that case I wonder why you bothered to quote him, and why you didn't bother yelling in your previous posts. On my end, the only way to read that is that you are yelling those things in response to what MSD said. If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry for misunderstanding but you should really think about how that looks when you're typing it, because it appears as though everything you're saying is (unnecessarily) directed towards MSD, with a "you too, Shani" tacked on at the end.

Anyway, this is silly because we basically agree. I just don't like to see people assume that someone is not doing what they can to create change simply because that person doesn't feel comfortable putting their name behind an entire field of candidates. Someone who is educated enough about all the candidates to make the decision MSD has is not someone who needs to be told to "get active."

I believe very strongly in voting, but I can't pretend that sometimes it isn't an exercise in futility. I grew up in Nebraska and my vote did not count for all intents and purpose. Granted, I still went out and voted because I was hopeful, I did feel civically responsible to do it, I moreover felt it was the right thing to do, and it just made me feel good to do it. However, our system really wasn't made to accommodate a massive voting population and people who don't care for one reason or another shouldn't vote just because. I think it's much more important that politicians make people want to get out and vote so they do than people go out and vote just because they feel that they should. That way it makes politicians cater to the public, build a constituency, and thus create accountability. Civic participation and achievement are ideal and honorable to me, but for many that just isn't the case and voting for the sake of voting would truly create more harm than good as it would almost certainly result in uniformly undesirable political consequences and/or necessitate a complete revamping of our political system and all of the upheaval that would entail.

There's also something to be said for the "You can't complain if you didn't vote" philosophy. That one has stuck with me since I was young.

Lets not forget Hitler's rise to power was actually not through military force per se, althought he did use a degree of violence to intimidate his opponents during his rise to power, Hitler rose to his his position through democratic means. It could be argued that Hitler would probably have retained a mandate throughout his rule. Hitler was very popular in his time, he had made Germany who was crippled by the reparations from world war 1, and ridiculous hyper inflation of the Weimar Republic, prosperous again. Many everyday Germans opposed to his anti-semitism accepted it because economically Germany was doing so well. He made Germans proud to be German.

Communist do vote. During Stalin's rule there were numerous elections, the only difference was it was a one party state. My view on the matter is that it is although in a 'liberal democracy' there is an appearance of being more than one party, the real truth, in the case of British politics the Labour party and The Conservative party, in the case of American politics the Democrats and the Republicans are practically the same party, with very little difference in terms of content but very different in terms of delivery.

Policies are no long based solely on the views of the party many are devised in 'think tanks'. Some of these 'think tanks' have quite a lot of control over policy and ultimately control over the country. Some of these 'think tanks' work for both parties so irrespective of who you vote for they will still have a certain amount of control. You'll not see any chance to vote for what 'think tank' is advising your executive.

I believe that the biggest form of propaganda bar religion is nationalism. What the fuck is nationalism but simply a way of saying my country is the best? Don't believe the hype, it is neither your duty nor a neccessity to vote. Duty as a citizen? Give me a break. As long as you aren't a complete asshole or harming others you are performing your civic duty. To quote Aldous Huxley,

"Under a scientific dictator education will really work- with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution"
(Brave New World Revisited, p160)

By all means if there is a candidate you feel you want to support, support them. I'm not claiming that you shouldn't vote out of principle but what I am claiming in that voting simply because you feel you must vote is ridiculous. If I believed in a candidate I would vote for them.

The problem I have is that most 'democracies' aren't as democratic as they seem. Proportional representation only exists in a very few countries. There is now also a very undemocratic unvoted for advisors to the executive element and on top of all that, there seems to be very little difference in terms of the candidates.

I'm sorry I keep quoting only your replies Crompsin, I meant to quote other people but don't know how to do more than one quote in a reply. Good thread though.

Voting for president: I'm with Cyn on the write-in option.

Your co-worker needs a quick kick in the head for being so party-driven.

My wife grew up in a communist country where voter turnout was 99%. They had ways of punishing you if you did not vote. A few brave souls protested by not voting since there really was no choice. Many people in this country feel the same way. Sometimes the most aggressive thing you can do is to refuse to endorse the election by witholding your support.

Not going to read anything else:

Vote for who you want first, if you can't do that, vote for your party, if you can't do that... then write Mickey Mouse. EDIT: or who you want... like Cyn said.

OT: convince all your friends TO VOTE, not to vote for your candidate, but just to vote. You didn't express this at all, but it is that "my vote doesn't really count" attitude that makes me want to punch my fellow Americans in the face. If they vote, and make others vote too... enough people voting MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.

I have to go shower, I posted in the politics section.

crompsin:

back in the day when communist parties were actually mass political movements in the west, they participated in parliamentary politics and benefitted from extensive voter support--so you're wrong about that too. sorry.

americans are often so strange about the word "communist"....it's kinda funny.

That's true, a country does not have to be communist to find examples of elections where the system is set up in such a way that there is no real choice.

I'm not sure I get this whole vote or die mentality. While I see benefit in supporting your party even if you don't like a candidate if that party supports your philosophy best, I don't see voting as anything that special of an activity. It is the RIGHT to vote that is important, not if you choose to exercise that right.

For example I have the right to bare arms, something many of you find offensive, but none the less I am allowed to arm myself with deadly firearms. I plan on doing so in the near future, but for now I do not have one. This is a right I have, which I strongly support, which I think is important, but I do not feel needs to be exercised.

Voting is much the same in that it is your ability to be able to have a voice that is important, not that you exercise it. If you feel both candidates are just as good/bad for president, or if you feel you don't know enough to vote, why should people be upset if you don't?

I think the real message with the 'you should vote!!!11one' type message is 'you should vote for the guy I like!!!11one'.

Just voting for voting sake or so you can fill a cliche like 'if you don't vote you can't complain' just doesn't make sense to me.

Oh and about that saying. Does that mean if I vote and my guy loses I'm allowed to bitch? Or if I vote and my guy wins but he turns out to suck am I allowed to bitch? If I write in Mickey Mouse can I complain?

An involved, and educated public is important for a republic like ours, but the focus should not be on voting but the education behind it. If people are informed and have a basic understanding of government you won't need to run commercials on MTV to 'rock the vote', instead treat the cause and not the symptom.

Hmmm... I wasn't thinking cute 'n useless parliamentary politics in the west... I was thinking of cold war era Russia or China, where the reality of communism is something much older than most of us at the board.

I'm talking about the realities of fascist and communist governments, not the ideals. Ideals are for people who don't work for a living, right? Everybody knows the ideals of communists and most kids remember Mussolini and Hitler from their history books... but it turns out that democracy doesn't work in these governments because "communism" is just a fun little facade for dictatorship. Fascism isn't as fun a title, but I get the idea.

They all start out "for the people" but end up being one giant gangster's paradise with the boss and his henchmen on top and everybody else on their knees.

I'm not a political sciences major nor a genius... but the endstate of fascist and communist governments appears to deviate rather heavily from their ideals.

It isn't vote or die, it's vote because it makes the system better and more accurate. Think of it as helping row the boat of government. You only have to put in one stroke every four years, for Christ's sake. Democracy works because the government reflects the desires of the people... if only certain people vote... we're not getting the whole picture.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck if anybody here votes... but voting is important somehow, somewhere. Voting reminds the good old boys that run the country we're still here.

Wow. Guns and voting. Nice. I don't know how to tackle the concept of firearm ownership and voting in this thread. You have the right to vote and the right to buy and own a firearm. You don't have to vote or own a firearm, but doing the first one benefits society while the second one might be useful should somebody decide your family would go well with some fava beans.

Pardon me, never mind, misread completely. Carry on.

nice.

why vote when you can just wait for a state of emergency to come along and with that a Decider who wipes away that pesky, cute-and-useless parliamentary thing?

"West" meaning North America, right?

"Useless" meaning the minority of communist parliamentary politics in North America, right?

I may be jumping through my ass. I do it all the time. Good thing it isn't very big.

1970s Russia and China were communist, right?

I saw that Mao/Stalin vs. Fascism confusion. I'm not THAT not-a-genius, Ratbastid. ;)

no. think france and italy for example.

i dont know if you meant to write what you wrote, if this is the question you pose: you said that parliamentary politics were "cute-n-useless"---so no.


isn't that last bit kind of what we call excess information?

Imagine for a moment, every eligible voter in the US voted in the next election. How is government better? How does it work better? Are the people who decide to not vote the people who should be having a say? If you don't feel strongly or even know whos running and pick the guy with the best sounding name how has that helped the process?

Please, Shani - Just Go Vote. Now more than EVER!!! And remember....you don't have to tell anyone, ever, for whom you voted. :thumbsup:


PS- I SO hate when people bitch about the "winner" and then they say, "well no, I didn't vote in the caucus, primary or AHem- major election...and oh-No! he/she isn't the person I wish were elected."

Continually voting for these (agents of change) polititians reminds me of the fraternities/clubs that give swats during initiation. "Thank You Sir, may I have another.":)

Sorry for the threadjack. I still think you shouldn't feel obligated to vote in an election where you do not support any of the candidates.

Yeah, I suppose acquiescence is pretty democratic. Hmm.

I see my probable position not so much as a lack of a vote but as a vote for none. I'll be voting in every race for which I can find a candidate who I feel I can support, and I think that the best thing for our country would probably be a Democrat in the White House with a Republican majority of around 55% in each house of congress. Connecticut will go to the Democrats unless hell freezes over, and a protest vote is more meaningful to me than a vote I don't mean.

I voted Libertarian in 2004, for a candidate who matched me 55% in the ontheissues.org candidate match quiz. I can overlook the economic extremism with which I disagree because even if hell froze over and the candidate won, congress would be there to balance them out. I cannot do the same in 2008 unless they nominate Imperato because I see other Libertarian candidates' immigration policies as ranging from xenophobic to outright racist.

The way we're going, by 2012 I'll have my chance to vote ... from the rooftop.
I'd rather keep my oar out of the water than row in the wrong direction.
Funny thing is, my biggest problem with most of the front runners is gun control. The majority who say "we need a new Assault Weapons Ban" and Obama's "ban all semi-autos" are dealbreakers for me.
At least someone understands me 100%
If a candidate who I can support is not nominated by election 2008, I will write you and Ustwo in as a P/VP ticket. At least I'm voting for someone, right?

You and the zillion people before you that have nothing good to say about the system keep saying that... and we keep going backwards because of it. Did you vote Bush in? Did you vote against him? Say ya did something.

Who said you have to vote for a front runner?

Hell, go for it. With UsTwo's education and my humility... we'll be a 100% than the last 8 years.

...

I'm voting for Uncle Phil from the TFP Party, myself.

Cromp, i wish people who SAY they did something really DID something...but, i guess that's life back in the world...

you be my minister of funny walks?

Oh, yessir, I pity those rifle-toting suckers overseas who put on the uniform every morning and think they're defending something as pretentious as American democracy.

...

I'll walk with anybody who is willing to stand up.