Is it really important that I vote
 

(I would really like this to NOT turn into a "party bashing" thread...I am asking a serious question that I would think could apply no matter which party you affiliate yourself with)

**edit I need to clarify I am talking about the presidential election specifically...this does not mean I wouldnt turn out to vote for other issues on the ballot

Yesterday a co-worker and I were talking....we happen to belong to the same "party" and I was explaining how I really honestly did not know if I was going to be able to vote this election because there was only one person I thought I could vote for and I doubted they would get the nomination...he very vehemently told me that I needed to vote no matter who it was that was on the ballot so that our "party" got the vote.

I'm wondering if thats true? Am I really supposed to put aside my disagreement with a candidates actions/past actions and their stance on things just to "vote"?

All politics aside, you should vote no matter what the circumstances.

We each have the right and, IMO, the duty to be counted, since those we elect are supposed to be representative but the system doesn't work unless we all do it.

Those who don't vote because their vote might have a particular negative effect are why we often find representatives we don't want in office.

So, in your opinion....I should put my convictions aside to vote for "someone" no matter how much I disagree with what they stand for, or that I wouldnt piss on if they were one fire (I know, bad analogy from a girl lol) just for the sake of a "vote"?

If thats the case then why should the candidates even bother with a platform? Why not just say...Ok Im with the Dem party, Rep party, Lib party vote for me just because of that

I'm of the opinion that you vote your conscience. This may mean that you don't vote for either candidate, or the lesser of two evils, but even a write in. A write in to express that you don't even like the two candidates, but you are still expressing your thoughts and excercising your right to vote.

This may not apply as much in the primary, but in the actual election day.

I thought about that.....I've never done a "write in"....can you do that and still be "seen" as voting for your particular party?

what do you mean "seen"?

Do you mean if you can tell people that you voted party lines? or how you voted in the election?

You don't have to tell anyone how you really voted, that's the point fo the secret ballot. You are allowed to vote your conscience without repercussion from pastor, family, friends, spouse, boss, party affilliation.

hmmm how did I mean that.

I meant like my coworker said....it is still counted as a vote for my party, since he seems to think thats the important thing, not WHO you voted for

So then that means voting party lines, voting down the democrat or republican line no matter who or what platform.

Not the way that I vote.

But again, you can tell people whatever you want to tell them. It's not any of their business nor can they even tell.

it is still counted that you voted.

I don't care to vote party lines, that's how some people vote because they don't know or don't understand the individual candidates or don't care but for the "party".

Sometimes I may vote that way for an individual candidate that I'm unsure of. In the most recent election here a candidate for a Judge was listed on all three lines, Republican, Democrat, Independent. So which "party" was he? I don't know didn't have time to find out enough about him, so I didn't vote for him.

Shani, I'm going to throw you a curve ball, so get ready.

It is exceedingly rare that elections have just one single ballot. There are usually a bunch of other things included because it's the easiest way to have referendums passed, vacated seats filled etc. While it's possible that your local primary doesn't have anything else on the ballot, it's rare. It's never happened to me, but I've always voted in larger cities.

Assuming for a second that your primary is a single issue vote, there are other reasons to turn out. Not all states are winner-take all for delegates, and a large contigent of second or third place candidate delegates can often influence party lines. There's also the issue that a higher turnout and result for your guy could aid him in getting his message out since the debates and federal funds are directly tied to results.

Is that enough reason for you?

well...Jazz...I didnt mean about more local things....I always vote on those, I mean actually casting the vote for president while Im there. (did I read what you meant correctly?)

The way I see it, Shani, is that I'm not really voting FOR anyone, because I never really like any of the candidates that much, anyway. But I do believe that I have a responsibility to vote, as a citizen, and I take that seriously.

So the way I see it, I am voting AGAINST someone else. For me personally, in the previous two elections, I was voting AGAINST someone... for the lesser of two very evil evils (as Cyn said above). Maybe it will help you to think of it that way... who do you want to vote against?

So...Im not supposed to look at it as supporting the person....Im supposed to look at it as supporting my party? It basically harks back to my earlier statement....it doesnt matter whether or not the party candidate makes me sick and I dont want them in office or in anyway able to be in a position of power....I want their party heading the nation over the other party?

Shani, I thought that you weren't going to show up at the polls at all. If that's not the case and you're just choosing not to cast a vote for President but would for, say, dog catcher, then it seems to me that you are making a political statement with that. I don't see where you'd have to apologize to anyone but the most rabid party-liner for that kind of thing. You would, after all, vote in other races, just not the Presidential primary.

yes, sorry if I confused you....I should have specified I meant the presidential election...I will go fix that so no one else gets confused

My question wasnt a question of "explaining myself" it was more....Why should I vote for evil incarnate just so that my vote was cast for my "party"

That's easy - you don't have to vote in that particular contest. Vote in the others that don't stink as bad.

If you can't find a candidate to support, you're not doing your party any disservice by chosing not to vote for evil incarnate.

Maybe I misunderstood?

I thought you were saying you would vote but didn't think it would help. I would never condone voting solely for a particular party.

No, I was asking strictly about voting for the sake of my party getting a vote

I'd say, if "your" party nominates a dog of a candidate, then you do "your" party more favors by communicating your dissatisfaction by abstaining.

But this whole notion of "support your party over your convictions" frankly is the worst facet of politics, and has echoes of Soviet politics to it. The fact is, I've always voted for a particular party (guess which one! ;) ), but I'm registered Independent, and if an independent or third party candidate (or, I suppose, a candidate of the "other" party) came along I could get enthusiastically behind, they'd have my vote.

Now if the party in question isn't the Republican or Democratic party, then there is actually some truth to what your coworker is telling you. Federal funds for third parties (Greens, Libertarians, etc.) is based on turnout. If they capture something like 5% (DC_Dux do you know the actual number) of a national election, then they are eligible for federal matching funds in the next cycle.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case here, but it's worth mentioning.

no its not a 3rd party Jazz, but thank you for the information on that, I didnt know that bit

Its a good question and I'm not sure of an answer.

If you follow the lessor of two evils philosophy then you should vote. Odds are that your desires will be better filled by someone in your party than someone outside under most circumstances. The primary system means moderates mostly get trashed these days so the odds of the other party nominating someone who can live with is very low.

If you think your party has no chance in an election, then I'd vote, even if I wasn't happy with the other guy. Politicians get wacky when they think they have a 'mandate' and view it as a reason to go nuts on their pet projects. If its close some may keep the wacky factor down because they are thinking about reelection.

Now if you think everyone just sucks equally, there is no reason to vote.

I vote against individuals, not parties... I am not registered for any party, I just see who comes up and vote for the ones who are less evil, regardless of party. Incidentally, most of the time the less-evil ones happen to be from one party, but that doesn't mean I will "register" myself under that party. I guess I don't really see the point of registering as a party member... ?

Shani, your coworker is an idiot. You don't vote for a party just so your party "wins" over the party. You vote for the candidate who best represents you.

No, thats what you vote for, not everyone. The problem with party politics is that by voting for an individual you are in fact voting for that party in pretty much everything.

Its quite possible, though getting rarer, that you may well like an individual and still its in your best interest politically to vote against them since you don't like their party.

Imagine if you have one good senate candidate and a poor one. The poor one is from the party you most identify with. If you vote for that good one because you like them, and that means that the senate is now in the other parties hands, you have in fact voted to make that parties policy dominant, even if the guy you voted for was moderate.

The reality is that party politics trump everything currently.

Voting isn't the only essential function of a member of a democracy. There are those who vote and do nothing else. This simply encourages a process of choosing your masters. If people were more engaged in politics, our idea of power would be quite different.

Voting might have a far feebler impact than you think.

i dont know how important it is to vote in itself.
i really dont.
i think this is an area where each person ends up having to weigh a variety of factors, many of which have already been outlined above.
i dont think the american system is really democratic--but this may or may not have a bearing on how i act within it.
i dont find candidates who speak anything like my views, so generally vote against rather than for.
this is a crappy position to be in, really.
does that mean you should or should not vote?
i dont know.

see, i dont think there's a principled answer to this.
maybe because if i find myself voting against rather than for, election participation in the context of the american oligarchy is as much therapeutic (wanting to feel like i've "done my bit") as a matter of anything approaching principle (except in the reasons behind voting against)...so i'm not even sure that my disposition toward the election process is transposable to anyone else.

basically, i think you have to just make a decision.

If you don't vote, do it out of protest and be loud about it. Otherwise, just pick the person you think would do the job best. Considering how close the previous two US elections were, I can't understand people thinking their vote wouldn't count. Bush only lost by a few thousand votes in 2000 and the same is true of 2004.

No, I think a "none of the above" message by not voting most accurately reflects your position. I'm sure your party would prefer that you vote for their chosen candidate and would benefit from your vote but do you really want to reward them for nominating someone you disagree with? They would not know you are not satisfied if you vote for them anyway.

There's a reason voting is not mandatory in America, and a reason that we now have secret ballots.

Vote, or don't vote, based on what you believe, not what someone else tells you you should believe or out of any sense of loyalty. If you can't support anyone in the election, don't vote for them. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not voting when you don't agree with any of the options.

If there's a candidate currently in the primaries that you can support (you say there's one candidate you can support but you don't think they'll get the nomination), be sure to vote in your primary to support him or her. Your vote in the primary has a lot of power, because not many people vote in primaries. Whether that candidate wins or not, you're still one more person who stood up and showed support.

Most importantly, don't let other people bully you into putting your name behind something that you disagree with. The only duty you have is to your own convictions.

Shani....its not clear if you are just not inspired by the major parties candidates for President or if you are thinking of not going to the polls at all.

If you dont like the major parties, find a third party that interests you......the Natural Law Party? (espouse a holistic approach to govt)

But remember, the November election is not just about electing a President. You have a vote for your member of the House (and 1/3 states for Senate) as well as state and local offices in many states.

And often, there are local bond and tax issues in many states and other ballot initiatives in some states...these issues might have the greatest short term impact on you (and your pocketbook) so keep that in mind when deciding whether to vote or not.

ooops...I just reread your post so you answered my question :)

The reality is that the Independent voters trump everything. There are more voters who do not affiliate with either major party than ever.

Today, voter registration is about 40% Dem, 35% Repub and 25% Independent. The way Independents swing..left or right....so goes the Presidency.

I thought the 2nd line of the OP stated that I was only talking about the presidential vote :confused:

shani: my take on this is that you have to think about what else you're voting for, or potentially might be voting for, aside from the actual candidate. let's say that some like huckabee appeals to you, but you think that mitt or mccain is going to win the nomination, and you can't support either.

fast forward.

mccain gets the nomination, and you can't really support mccain. now, do you vote republican or not?

i think that's a personality decision, to some extent, and a question of your level of engagement in party politics. i don't think your party affiliation is that strong, or you wouldn't be asking the question. so you would have to ask yourself, i think...what else would i be voting for, by voting for this candidate. who are this person's handlers, and what will this mean in terms of supreme court justice nominations, earmark funding, national resonance with that party being in "power" ?

maybe nothing, if you agree with roach and think that it's all more or less rigged to keep the powers that be in power. but you might ask yourself if the party's policies, in general, more accurately represent you.

either way, i wouldn't vote for or against because of fear of alienating yourself from a party base, or from simple groupthink appeals...which i think your co-worker's position seems to suggest...but because you think it's more important for a particular party have more control of the system.

if you don't feel that way, and that not much is gained by voting for a particular party, i would personally vote the strongest 3rd party candidate. not because i would support 100%, or even 50%, of their platform. i would vote strong 3rd party for the reasons jazz alluded to above. i would like for american politics to be opened up to more viewpoints in the debates, if you want to call them debates instead of soundbite trading competitions, and i'd love to see the major party candidates have to wrestle with positions that point to the fundamental seat of political and social power in the united states.

i don't know if that's an informed position, or if it's of any use. basically, in the end, vote (or don't vote) based on what you feel comfortable with.

Shani, I would like to second SM70's remark. I always vote but my reason for voting can change with every election. 2000 was "stick man" and the "chimp", neither a good choice imo, so I voted FOR the Supreme Court. 2004 was a completely different motivation. I was voting for anyone BUT. I'm sure you're impressed with my voting batting average. :)

Examine what political values are most important to you and try to match them with a candidate, if possible. Stand firm for your choice during the primaries for the reasons Jazz gave. The general election is the best place to show your disatisfaction with the candidates. Writein the candidate of your choice, rather than opting out. A missing vote doesn't say anything about your intention. A writein says a great deal.

I'm quite interested by some of the replys to this question, particularly jewels443 reply. From an outsider looking in to American politics (Northern Ireland), I would have assumed that there is much more debate than there has been, to whether voting is relevant. To me it seems the general consensus, bar a few, that voting is highly relevant.
I want to pick up on the word duty that jewels has put in bold, surely in a 'liberal democracy' your are free to either vote or not to vote. I'm not entirely sure of the make-up of the US political system but from what I've gathered from my rudimentary introduction through the media from home is that to use the term 'representive' to describe the US system would be quite false. How can 2 parties represent the needs of millions and millions of people?
I appreciate your position and think it is very worthy, but in truth, democracy in this day and age is a complete fallacy. I can't speak with with complete accuracy in terms of the American political system but I can illustrate it through the British model.
The British model exists on the principle of first past the post, in that party that wins the most seats leader, is asked to form a cabinet, the executive. He will normally, but not neccessarily, pick members of his own party to form cabinet. The role of the rest of the MPs (legislative) is to scrutinize the executive's policys and decisions and to vote on whether they are passed. The seats are won on the basis that in an constituency the person with the most votes wins a seat. Correct me if I'm wrong but is that not similar to the US system?
Anyhow, the way I see it, 10% in the country could have voted for the 'Have a bath on Tuesday party', however the party may not have a single seat in either the executive or even the the legislative because it didn't have a overall majority in a single constituency. How are the 10%, who have voted for the 'Have a Bath on Tuesday party' represented?
Quite simply they are not. From an outsider looking into American politics (its getting very similar in the UK too), it seems you have a choice between eggs and bacon or eggs and saugage and you are fucked if you don't want eggs at all. I think if people should really think before they vote. I think it was said before in this thread the executive draws its power from its mandate. Low turnout would significantly call into question the legitamacy of thier power. What's that famous JFK saying 'ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country' should be greeted with a response of 'what the fuck has my country done for me lately'.

Apologies I don't know how to quote other people's threads. I also apologize if my knowledge of the American political system isn't what it should be but I'd like to think my response makes sense as I have described it in terms of the British model.

The problem with voting for President is that it only matters in a few states. With the Electoral College, you're vote doesn't matter in most states. For example, I live in California. I WAS a Bush supporter and voted for him twice; however, California's Electoral College votes all went to Gore and Kerry, respectively. So, in essence, I didn't ever vote for Bush (Which makes me feel better about myself and my past character decisions). Georgia is historically a Red State, thus, no matter who you vote for, you will be voting Republican. In many states, the politicians who makeup the EC do not even have to vote with the popular vote, which would effectively make all votes in that state worthless.

I would say that if Georgia is a state that the EC has to vote on the popular vote, or they decide to do away with the EC system, you should vote for the candidate you believe in. On the flip side, if it always has been a Red State (or a Blue State) and always will be one regardless of the popular vote, it really doesn't matter. In that case, stick to voting on referendums and city and state government officials, because that is the only way you can change the color of most states.

The idea that your vote is less important because of the Electoral College is just plain false. Quite simply, your vote is more likely to determine the outcome of a state election (Electoral College) than it is to determine the outcome of a national election (popular vote). It's better for your vote to be one of 30 million than one of 300 million. Yes, sometimes that may work to your disadvantage (2000), but that is a very rare occurrance.

That's not to say the United States election system isn't without problems, but the Electoral College is the undeserving scapegoat of those problems. If you want to talk about what really needs to be changed, it's how we count votes. When it comes to producing the candidate that the most people can feel decent about, the plurality system we use is one of the worst. We need to count votes using a method which complies with the Condorcet criterion, and this would only make voting marginally more complicated for the average American. Instead of voting on one person, all they'd have to do is rank candidates. It's the way we count votes that is at the core of unpleasant election results, not the Electoral College.

Shani, I frequently have the same thoughts.
But, I live in Florida and my voting precinct was one of the ones they "forgot" to count, so I think I'm jaded.
Not having any advice for you, but I'm glad to know that there is someone else out there that questions it in a vocal manner.

Democracy works when citizens take an active interest in government by participating in the ways that have been laid out.

Democracy fails when people sit on their asses and do nothing.

I agree 100%, but there is a big difference between making an educated decision to abstain from voting and sitting on your ass and doing nothing.

Yes, I believe they call it a "soft dictatorship," or an oligarchy.

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.

I just think to consider voting as a duty is very silly. I think voting should not be done just because it would be 'unamerican' or 'undemocratic' not to. Nationalism nor sense of civic duty should not come into whether you vote or not. You should vote for the right reasons.

Low turnout in elections is not neccessarily a bad thing for democracy. It shows politicians that their policies aren't what people want or their message isn't reaching the whole demographic of the electorate. Ustwo is spot on about education. My Granmother votes on whether the person seems a nice man or not. She votes because she thinks that what you should do. I'm not saying her vote shouldn't count but what I am saying is democracy only truely works if people are educated enough to make informed decisions. This relates to the press as well. There is not enough done to make programs or news stories of serious content, instead we are presented with sensationalized and sometimes very one sided shit, that Goebbels would be proud of.

I personally am highly skeptical of politicians and the political system both in the UK and US. However this is my opinion. I would never encourage people not to vote but before they do I would ask them to vote for the right reasons. Do not vote simply because you live in a democracy. Do not vote because of any benign sense of nationalism or civic duty. Do not vote because someone tells you must. Vote because that person/party represents your values and is who you want to have in charge. If they do not, why are you giving them power?

Mmm, I vote because I want to be one of those anonymous jittering white balls in the government's giant game of "Hungry, Hungry Hippos."

Of course we have a choice. Let others decide for us, or offer our dime. Does anyone really think that not voting makes a statement? Yes, the newscasters will mention that there was low voter turnout. Party X had a higher turnout than Party Y. How's that going to influence what happens the next four years?

Exactly the point. So if all the well-educated, well-informed and highly opinionated member of TFP skip the polls, your grandma and my grandma, the only ones voting, are deciding if their grandsons will be going to war, if their granddaughters will be making choices and how far their dollars will go?

That's why I feel that it's my civic duty. Just as I would never give up my right to serve on a jury. It's everyone's one chance to put up or shut up. If you don't like the choices, go for the nomination.

Well put. Far from convincing the powers that be to change tack to attract the disaffected, low turnout does just the opposite, with campaigns turning to the committed base of their respective ideologies to attract the votes of those they know will show up. It is when turn out is high that the candidates that are more moderate, or represent new thinking do better.

This will be my very first presidential election in which I can actually vote. (turned 18 in 2006) I probably will even though I'm not too keen on either of the candidates from my chosen party. Although I have to remind myself, everyone has skeletons in their closet especially politicians.
As for you MUST vote Shani, I say no. A few small amount of the population actually does. If you don't find the need to do so because of your choice on the candidates then don't. No harm no foul.

I voted for a third party. I'm not thrilled with the guy, but his campaign platform didn't have any deal breakers for me.

Nobody. I said before that I don't think I'll be able to support any of the ~20 candidates. After thinking about it, I'll probably just write in the guy I support if he loses the primary.

I liked this:<br><br><IMG SRC="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/2180883911_ccf811a615.jpg?v=0">

It should also be noted - since it hasn't been said yet in this thread - that not all states allow write-in candidates.