The Right to Vote

[I Like Soup]

I can see this point to a degree...but what if you find that all candidates running for office are not worthy of that office? Should you still vote for the lesser of two evils? If Dick A and Dick B are running against each other, I can't criticize either Dick since I didn't vote? If I am not voting, I am basically stating that I think both candidates are garbage.

 

Wouldn't a mass of people not voting, and thus letting our public servants know that they are unhappy with the current candidates, be a bigger statement? Wouldn't that maybe prompt better candidates in the future if they can say to themselves "hey, no one voted last election. If I run and can orchestrate a solid campaign, I have a great shot at winning." It might very well bring out better options.

 

BTW, I don't disagree that voting isn't a terrific right we have been afforded. I just find it odd that its almost the only right that people judge other people on.

What if none of the candidates are worth voting for?

 

 

I'll ask the same question here...what if none of the candidates are worth voting for? What if those that are elected are not working on behalf of the people they are supposed to serve but rather to line their own pockets?

 

How many people vote religiously based purely on party? How many people vote for whom they consider the "lesser of the evils"? Is not voting at all really worse than casting a vote (for someone you dont like/agree with) purely because you feel obligated to vote for someone?

 

Not looking to start a fight or attack anyone's opinion. Just asking some questions to see how people feel/think...

 

ETA: Swami kinda beat me to it

Here is the salient point that everyone seems to be missing. You are not required to vote for anyone listed on the ballot. You may freely vote for any person that you feel is qualified for the position. It is called a write in vote. The American public has been sold a bill of goods that tricked them into believing that they must voted for either a Democrat or Republican. They do not have to. I honestly wish that more people would exercise their right to write in a candidate. I don't care if their choice didn't wine the election but what kind of message would it send to the politicians if 64% of the people that voted didn't vote for any candidate on the ballot?

Exactly what I was gonna post Kid. And I would point to those ignorant of the write in to the Alaskan election results at the moment.

 

And let me also point out, there are things called propositions that you can vote on as well that have a direct impact on the laws in your State/community, not just people to vote for.

[Pope Flick]

It's a pipe dream and wouldn't change a damn thing. They're content knowing that you didn't vote for the other candidate.

 

 

I disagree. I have voted independent for nearly my entire 20+ years as a voter, which in part makes me one of their worst nightmares: someone who is active politically but isn't beholden to a single party. They want you beholden and if they know you're active they want you beholden to them.

[rajncajn]

I disagree. I have voted independent for nearly my entire 20+ years as a voter, which in part makes me one of their worst nightmares: someone who is active politically but isn't beholden to a single party. They want you beholden and if they know you're active they want you beholden to them.

How many times in 20+ years has your independent candidate actually won?

[Pope Flick]

How many times in 20+ years has your independent candidate actually won?

 

 

That's not the point. I vote for who I want to, which is IMO what everyone should do.

 

 

ETA - as a matter of fact, the attitude behind your question is one of the biggest problems we have: why bother voting if you don't vote for a potential winner? That's garbage logic.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Pope Flick

[rajncajn]

That's not the point. I vote for who I want to, which is IMO what everyone should do.

 

 

ETA - as a matter of fact, the attitude behind your question is one of the biggest problems we have: why bother voting if you don't vote for a potential winner? That's garbage logic.

I'm not saying it's wrong to vote for who you really want. I agree, that's how everyone should vote. That is how I vote. My point is it still does not influence the two major parties when all they're concerned about is winning the majority. They will try their best to influence you to vote for them. But if you don't, so long as you don't vote for the other major party, they couldn't care less. It's not a win for them, but it's not a loss either. In their eyes it's moot.

Edited November 3, 2010 by rajncajn

[untateve]

I'm not saying it's wrong to vote for who you really want. I agree, that's how everyone should vote. That is how I vote. My point is it still does not influence the two major parties when all they're concerned about is winning the majority. They will try their best to influence you to vote for them. But if you don't, so long as you don't vote for the other major party, they couldn't care less. It's not a win for them, but it's not a loss either. In their eyes it's moot.

 

 

But if enough people voted for a 3rd party that it siphoned off votes they needed (see Bush/Perot), it might get the two party's attention.

[Ursa Majoris]

But if enough people voted for a 3rd party that it siphoned off votes they needed (see Bush/Perot), it might get the two party's attention.

Didn't work for Perot, other than being yet another false dawn. Third party candidates are usually 1) subsumed into one party or the other, 2) disappear without trace or 3) crushed between the grinding wheels of the two parties working together to destroy the interloper.

[untateve]

Didn't work for Perot, other than being yet another false dawn. Third party candidates are usually 1) subsumed into one party or the other, 2) disappear without trace or 3) crushed between the grinding wheels of the two parties working together to destroy the interloper.

 

Well, if perot didn't turn out to be insane, it might have been a bit more interesting.

[Pope Flick]

Didn't work for Perot, other than being yet another false dawn. Third party candidates are usually 1) subsumed into one party or the other, 2) disappear without trace or 3) crushed between the grinding wheels of the two parties working together to destroy the interloper.

 

 

Again, I'll disagree and actually point to what I believe was my best vote ever: like it or not Gingrich heard the 20 million who voted for Perot, got into congress and we got a balanced budget within 2 years of his prattling about the 'crazy aunt in the basement no one wanted to talk about.' It was anything but a false dawn unless you thought a 3rd Party was going to emerge. But it produced tangible results that were very much motivated by 20 million voters in the system who told both parties to shove it then.

 

No Perot, no balanced budget after 1994. I don't think you could argue against that effectively.

[Ursa Majoris]

Again, I'll disagree and actually point to what I believe was my best vote ever: like it or not Gingrich heard the 20 million who voted for Perot, got into congress and we got a balanced budget within 2 years of his prattling about the 'crazy aunt in the basement no one wanted to talk about.' It was anything but a false dawn unless you thought a 3rd Party was going to emerge. But it produced tangible results that were very much motivated by 20 million voters in the system who told both parties to shove it then.

 

No Perot, no balanced budget after 1994. I don't think you could argue against that effectively.

I was referring to the emergence of a viable third party as a false dawn.

[Pope Flick]

I was referring to the emergence of a viable third party as a false dawn.

 

 

I figured that as I was writing, which was why I put in the whole 'unless you thought it was a 3rd party' part...

[Ursa Majoris]

I figured that as I was writing, which was why I put in the whole 'unless you thought it was a 3rd party' part...

We had Ventura here and even that didn't lead to a third party worth anything, not even locally. Ventura came under #3, BTW (crushed between the grinding wheels of the two parties working together to destroy the interloper.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Here is the salient point that everyone seems to be missing. You are not required to vote for anyone listed on the ballot. You may freely vote for any person that you feel is qualified for the position. It is called a write in vote. The American public has been sold a bill of goods that tricked them into believing that they must voted for either a Democrat or Republican. They do not have to. I honestly wish that more people would exercise their right to write in a candidate. I don't care if their choice didn't wine the election but what kind of message would it send to the politicians if 64% of the people that voted didn't vote for any candidate on the ballot?

 

OK, but whats the big difference between voting for Elmer Fudd, and not voting at all? The net of the message is the same: each party can track you as a vote that didn't go their way, or wasn't cast at at all, which is really all they are worried about.

[gbpfan1231]

OK, but whats the big difference between voting for Elmer Fudd, and not voting at all? The net of the message is the same: each party can track you as a vote that didn't go their way, or wasn't cast at at all, which is really all they are worried about.

Yep

[Jimmy Neutron]

I don't see why a person should vote if they think all the candidates are a$$hats. Say the Democrat is in favor of abortion on demand for all women of whatever age, which the voter virulently opposes and the Republican is in favor of open weapons carry for everyone everywhere, which the voter also virulently opposes. How is that voter supposed to vote if they are compelled to?

 

Much better is the Nevada option for "none of these candidates".

 

Thankfully, I have not lived in a state where only the two big parties are represented on ballots. It's nice punching a card (so to speak) guilt free. At least I know I'm part of the small contingent that regularly says, "You suck!" to the Big Two.

[Jimmy Neutron]

We had Ventura here and even that didn't lead to a third party worth anything, not even locally. Ventura came under #3, BTW (crushed between the grinding wheels of the two parties working together to destroy the interloper.

 

So by all means, support the machine?

 

Fight the good fight and vote for people with ideas your truly believe in. It's a slow process, but it's important not to forget how utterly incompetent the heffalumps and donkeys are.

[SEC=UGA]

In this past Gubernatorial election the two major candidates here in GA were just downright awful. One is a hick, junkyard owning, self righteous, crooked, ex-congressman and the other was an ex-governor, crooked, self righteous attorney... I had to vote for the Libertarian candidate. My vote was possibly wasted as we didn't even get a run off, in which case I would have to vote for the former of the two candidates left. This election cycle really sucked ass with regard to the quality of vermin.

[Kid Cid]

In this past Gubernatorial election the two major candidates here in GA were just downright awful. One is a hick, junkyard owning, self righteous, crooked, ex-congressman and the other was an ex-governor, crooked, self righteous attorney... I had to vote for the Libertarian candidate. My vote was possibly wasted as we didn't even get a run off, in which case I would have to vote for the former of the two candidates left. This election cycle really sucked ass with regard to the quality of vermin.

Your vote is never wasted just because you didn't vote for a candidate of either two major parties. That is flawed thinking right there.

[untateve]

I've given this example before:

 

My 14-yr-old son walks up and punches his 8-yr-old cousin in the mouth. I yell at him and tell him never to do that again. I then give him $20. My son, the next day, punches his cousin in the mouth. I yell really loud. I explain how wrong it is to behave in such a manner. I then give him $20. The next day, my son punches his cousin in the mouth. I yell at him, I ground him. My wife yells at him. I then give him $20. Should I be surprised when my son punches his cousin in the mouth on the following day?

 

Politicians focus more on power and other BS rather than the needs of the country and its citizens. The citizens yell and complain. And then vote for them (best known as voting for the lesser of two evils). Politicians focus more on power and other BS rather than the needs of the country and its citizens. The citizens yell and complain. And then vote for them. Politicians focus more on power and other BS rather than the needs of the country and its citizens. The citizens yell and complain. And then vote for them. Why is anyone surprised when politicians continue in their negative behaviors when the voters continue to reinforce it.

 

The principles underlying this can be found in any Intro to Psychology text book.

[Perchoutofwater]

I've given this example before:

 

My 14-yr-old son walks up and punches his 8-yr-old cousin in the mouth. I yell at him and tell him never to do that again. I then give him $20. My son, the next day, punches his cousin in the mouth. I yell really loud. I explain how wrong it is to behave in such a manner. I then give him $20. The next day, my son punches his cousin in the mouth. I yell at him, I ground him. My wife yells at him. I then give him $20. Should I be surprised when my son punches his cousin in the mouth on the following day?

 

Politicians focus more on power and other BS rather than the needs of the country and its citizens. The citizens yell and complain. And then vote for them (best known as voting for the lesser of two evils). Politicians focus more on power and other BS rather than the needs of the country and its citizens. The citizens yell and complain. And then vote for them. Politicians focus more on power and other BS rather than the needs of the country and its citizens. The citizens yell and complain. And then vote for them. Why is anyone surprised when politicians continue in their negative behaviors when the voters continue to reinforce it.

 

The principles underlying this can be found in any Intro to Psychology text book.

 

Wow that sounds like a lot of government assistance programs. We give them money so that the they can become self sufficient. They realize that they can get this money without working for it, so rather than the money being a hand up it becomes a disincentive for the people receiving it to do what the were intended to do with the money.

[detlef]

Groups who should be excluded from voting:

College students (especially the 35 year old variety)

People under 25 (yeah, yeah, at 18 you can got to war, yada, yada, yada... Back in the day, the Revolutionary, Civil wars, they had 12 year old boys on the battle field, they weren't and should not have been allowed to vote...)

People who are not US citizens (but they live in our communities and pay taxes... F'em)

People who have been a US citizen for less than 11 years (I'll give these people the right to vote on their 18th anniversary of being in the US legally. & years to get citizenship, 11 years after that before you can vote)

Single wimmen with more than one child Wimmen

Asians who have more than 3 moving violations over the course of 5 years... If you don't know how to drive appropriately, you are not allowed to vote.

Felons... I don't care if they've served their time or not. You get pinched for a felony, no vote for you!!!

Cashiers or cooks at fast food restaurants over the age of 18.

Dead people

People who go to church more than once per week

People who have handled reptiles while at church

People who have ever spoken in tongues while at church

People who close their eyes and sway back and forth, clapping their hands, with that gay look on their face, to the gay rock, gospel songs at church

The Jewish Guys with the long side burns... I believe they are called Hasidic.

Muslims that have ever refused to allow a dog in their cab or in their gas station

Muslims that have ever refused to provide transport in their cab to a person due to drunkeness or possession of an alcoholic beverage

People with more than 1 wife... Mormons, I'm looking in your direction...

Anyone that has ever jumped off of anything "for fun"

Anyone that has ever said "watch this" and was admitted to the hospital for severe injuries after that statement

Moneymakers (though I've probably covered him already)

Florida Gator fans

People who have a PHD in a Liberal Art

Gay people who paint themselves like rainbows

Anyone who believes wind and solar power are the best alternatives to fix our reliance on fossil fuel power

 

I'll think of some more, I'm certain.

That is outstanding.

[detlef]

Wow that sounds like a lot of government assistance programs. We give them money so that the they can become self sufficient. They realize that they can get this money without working for it, so rather than the money being a hand up it becomes a disincentive for the people receiving it to do what the were intended to do with the money.

The way this gets brought up, you'd think it was of epidemic proportions rather than just being annoying and wrong but, ultimately, not something that is actually crippling our country.

 

I compare that to, say, the fact that we spend more on defense than the next 18 countries combined. I mean, we've all seen the graphs, it's astounding. That would seem like a lot of money to me. But mention this as a possible issue and you're weakening the country. We spend more than 10x the next highest country in the world. Don't you think we could limp by if we spent, say, 5x as much as the next highest country? I mean, technically we're friends with most of these guys, so it's not like we need to be that much better armed than everyone else of any consequence combined. And if we do, then there really is something wrong.

[Ursa Majoris]

Groups who should be excluded from voting:

College students (especially the 35 year old variety)

People under 25 (yeah, yeah, at 18 you can got to war, yada, yada, yada... Back in the day, the Revolutionary, Civil wars, they had 12 year old boys on the battle field, they weren't and should not have been allowed to vote...)

People who are not US citizens (but they live in our communities and pay taxes... F'em)

People who have been a US citizen for less than 11 years (I'll give these people the right to vote on their 18th anniversary of being in the US legally. & years to get citizenship, 11 years after that before you can vote)

Single wimmen with more than one child Wimmen

Asians who have more than 3 moving violations over the course of 5 years... If you don't know how to drive appropriately, you are not allowed to vote.

Felons... I don't care if they've served their time or not. You get pinched for a felony, no vote for you!!!

Cashiers or cooks at fast food restaurants over the age of 18.

Dead people

People who go to church more than once per week

People who have handled reptiles while at church

People who have ever spoken in tongues while at church

People who close their eyes and sway back and forth, clapping their hands, with that gay look on their face, to the gay rock, gospel songs at church

The Jewish Guys with the long side burns... I believe they are called Hasidic.

Muslims that have ever refused to allow a dog in their cab or in their gas station

Muslims that have ever refused to provide transport in their cab to a person due to drunkeness or possession of an alcoholic beverage

People with more than 1 wife... Mormons, I'm looking in your direction...

Anyone that has ever jumped off of anything "for fun"

Anyone that has ever said "watch this" and was admitted to the hospital for severe injuries after that statement

Moneymakers (though I've probably covered him already)

Florida Gator fans

People who have a PHD in a Liberal Art

Gay people who paint themselves like rainbows

Anyone who believes wind and solar power are the best alternatives to fix our reliance on fossil fuel power

 

I'll think of some more, I'm certain.

Idiot small business owners from states beginning with G.

[Perchoutofwater]

The way this gets brought up, you'd think it was of epidemic proportions rather than just being annoying and wrong but, ultimately, not something that is actually crippling our country.

 

I compare that to, say, the fact that we spend more on defense than the next 18 countries combined. I mean, we've all seen the graphs, it's astounding. That would seem like a lot of money to me. But mention this as a possible issue and you're weakening the country. We spend more than 10x the next highest country in the world. Don't you think we could limp by if we spent, say, 5x as much as the next highest country? I mean, technically we're friends with most of these guys, so it's not like we need to be that much better armed than everyone else of any consequence combined. And if we do, then there really is something wrong.

 

I agree with you regarding defense. We need to close about 1/2 of our foreign bases at a minimum. We also need to streamline the Pentagon. Based on the amount of coastline we have as well as the flexibility they offer, I would be opposed to reducing the size of our Navy fleet. I also think that we need to keep spending on R&D of new weapons technologies but we need to be a whole lot smarter about it, so this budget could be cut significantly as well.

[SEC=UGA]

Idiot small business owners from states beginning with G.

 

Minnesotans... the state that brought you Walter Mondale, Jesse Ventura and Al Franken