Pelican Parts Forums - Not Voting and Proud

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Not Voting and Proud (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/313677-not-voting-proud.html)

Not Voting and Proud

Quote:

Not Voting and Proud

Don't throw away your life; throw away your vote

Brian Doherty | November 2, 2004

Today, I'm joining a near majority of eligible voters in expressing our deepest values and thoughts regarding the choices presented us in our democracy: by not voting.

Since 1976, only once have more than 55 percent of eligible voters voted—and in 1996 fewer than 50 percent did. Although many, almost most, of us do it, there are always voices attempting to shame us about not voting. If we fail to exercise the franchise, the Statue of Liberty will shed one fat tear, or P. Diddy will kill us.

But the non-voting should not skulk in the shadows. We have solid, well-nigh unimpeachable reasons for the choice we refuse to make on election day.

First, voting is futile. It would be a mathematical miracle if our vote actually decided the result of an election. And aren't we all told, when we contemplate voting for a Libertarian or a Nader, that doing so is "wasting our vote" because the third party candidate "can't win"? This means causing a victory is the only way not to waste your vote.

But the result of any national election will be the same regardless of whether, or how, any individual votes. For your vote to be decisive, you would have to be a single deciding vote in the single state whose electoral votes decide the election—so unlikely it's barely worth contemplating.

As the 2000 election showed, it's not only effectively mathematically impossible that one vote could matter: it is politically impossible as well. Imagine the recounts, margins of error, and eventual Supreme Court decision if by some miracle the presidency hung on one vote.

Thus, the act of voting has no possible direct personal benefit, even if you actually wholeheartedly support everything you expect from a candidate. But your expectations, as George W. "no nation building" Bush has proven most recently, will have little relation to what the candidate will actually do. Read the complete article

they should really outlaw polling and predictions of who is going to win ahead of time. that influences people.

and give equal time to ALL the candidates, not just the ones with the most money.... the system is F-ed up. you need a lot of MONEY to win.. Money = buying votes.

You are the sole member of my ignore list, but I will respond to this.

GOOD, you should not vote

If you don't vote, you give up your right to complain..

Quote:

Originally posted by hardflex
If you don't vote, you give up your right to complain..

I am willing to bet that doe's not happen!

Quote:

Originally posted by hardflex
If you don't vote, you give up your right to complain..

we could only hope.......

I do not think Pat said he was not voting.

The article is very interesting and makes some good points.

The pathetic attempt to get voters to the polls:

Quote:

If we fail to exercise the franchise, the Statue of Liberty will shed one fat tear, or P. Diddy will kill us.

How an unpopular choice can win an election for president when a half way decent choice arises from the ranks of Libitarian or more along my thoughts a F. Ross Perot pops up. My Aunt and Uncle campaigned for the first time in their life for Perot and when he didn't even come close, they swore off voting.

Quote:

First, voting is futile. It would be a mathematical miracle if our vote actually decided the result of an election. And aren't we all told, when we contemplate voting for a Libertarian or a Nader, that doing so is "wasting our vote" because the third party candidate "can't win"? This means causing a victory is the only way not to waste your vote.

I take a very dim view of those that refuse to vote.

We have few obligations as citizens, is it really so much to ask that you vote?

Very stupid, arrogant post Pat.

There should be at least local or state issues on you ballot. I have twice voted "issues only" in the ancient Greek tradition. I don't see why more people don't just do that if they hate the two party system so much.

In some European countries its ILLEGAL not to vote. should be the same in N America as well.

Apathy will eventually kill a democracy.

Quote:

Originally posted by HardDrive
I take a very dim view of those that refuse to vote.

We have few obligations as citizens, is it really so much to ask that you vote?

Very stupid, arrogant post Pat.

Why should this one be any different than all his other posts??

Here in AZ we are voting on a proposition that every one who votes in future elections will be entered into a million dollar lottery. Good idea? Bad idea? Many different opinions.

George Carlin addressed the topic of not voting once. He said that he didnot vote and therefore could not be held responsible for anything the elected officials did. Silly, but on the surface sounded logical.

Quote:

Originally posted by hardflex
If you don't vote, you give up your right to complain..

Why? Should I feel compelled to cast a vote when there is no candidate of whom I approve?

Nah...This is America. Complain all you want and vote if it pleases you.

Why should i join the military and sit in a foxhole for four years if there is no foxhole of which i approve?

...

So other nitwits can dispense bad advice on Porsche discussion forums i guess. Or maybe it was for the 1st rate pay that i did it... ;)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...andcold1RT.jpg

Quote:

Originally posted by m21sniper
Why should i join the military and sit in a foxhole for four years if there is no foxhole of which i approve?

....

THAT'S the idea!

Manditory voting? I am so against that on many levels.
Some people decline to vote on principal, but lots of people in this country don't vote because they are too lazy or irresponsible or messed up to be capable of making even a slightly logical choice.
Do we really want these people to vote to be involved? I don't. We are fortunate that the dregs of society usually filter themselves out of the decision-making and policy setting process.

If every single homeless person or unemployed welfare couch turd or crack mama was forced to vote the democtats would will everything by a landslide.
Why? because democrat politicians get elected by promising to take from the have's and give to the have-nots.
Those too lazy or stupid to vote would fit into the latter category for the most part, so personal greed would influence them to vote democrat.
Why should they care if the ruin the economy or the country, as long they get something for free they didn't earn?

I understand the concept of political balance but there just aren't enough hard working sucessful people to even come close to balancing out the votes of all the low-lifes. They would quickly take over and drag everyone down to their level until no one had a job.

if they want to vote, fine. but don't force them. We are all better off if they don't vote.

BTW, robin hood was a common thief, not a hero.

Quote:

Originally posted by sammyg2
Manditory voting? I am so against that on many levels.

Why not add a "None of the above" box on the ballot?

"If every single homeless person or unemployed welfare couch turd or crack mama was forced to vote the democtats would will everything by a landslide."

So the average American is a single, unemployed, couch riding, crackhead?

One vote most likely doesn't matter. The problem is 50% of the country deciding not to vote. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Part of the group that did all they could or part of the group that did nothing.