to vote or not to vote

[yar0]

an essay question of mine in US government:

"Some argue that low voter turnout is not a problem if those who do not go to the polls believe the government is being run correctly. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Give reasons for your answer."

What do you think?

[Ulyaoth]

That's an absolutely stupid position. If they think the government is run correctly, they should want to put the party they think is doing a good job back in power. Like in the current election, if people think the democrats are doing a good job but don't vote, they'll lose, and people they may think may do a bad job will take over. Unless the point is that they think the government in general as a system is running correctly, in which case they should again be voting to make sure people who want to change things don't get in.

[Corvis]

What if you think your only choices all suck equally but differently?

[yar0]

What if you think your only choices all suck equally but differently?

i sense genius

[Oldgamer]

What if you think your only choices all suck equally but differently?

Then, you vote for the candidate with the lowest suck-factor.

[Corvis]

Then, you vote for the candidate with the lowest suck-factor.

I don't believe in settling for low standards.

[Oldgamer]

I don't believe in settling for low standards.

Good example of what I'm talking about ...

In Illinois, the GOP candidate for Senate is Mark Kirk. The National Rifle Association hasn't endorsed anyone in the Senate race, here, giving both Kirk and the DEM an "F" rating. Kirk also voted for Cap & Trade (we conservatives call it "Crap and Tax").

So, why should I vote for Kirk?

First, he narrowly leads Giannoulias, in this race, by about 4 points.

Second, on most issues ... especially fiscal issues, except for Crap & Tax ... we agree.

Finally, does anyone actually think that the handpicked Senate candidate of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is going to protect Second Amendment rights?

So, I will go into the voter's booth, hold my nose, and vote "Kirk" for Senate. Besides, the Supreme Court is the "supreme issue" of the Senate race ...

And note: I didn't set those low standards. The voters did, in the Primaries.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

In Australia, where going to the ballot is compulsory, the choice to note vote - I.e, vote for yourself, your favourite superhero, fill out of the ballot form incorrectly or sign your name at the station but not bother voting, or even to weather the $xxx fee to not vote - is usually indicative not of lazy support for a party, but apathy in either party or the entire system.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

I don't vote because 1. I can't be bothered getting off my arse 2. Who gives a damn? Probability of the new government being drastically different from the last is slim to non-existent. Politicans are all arse-holes, the label they stick to themselves matters not.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Here's a better statement: People who don't vote are lazy bums who don't care who runs their government, and so they will have to deal with whatever person other people deem fit to run his/her life.

So if you don't vote, don't whine about who won.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Here's a better statement: People who don't vote are lazy bums who don't care who runs their government, and so they will have to deal with whatever person other people deem fit to run his/her life.

So if you don't vote, don't whine about who won.

I don't, thank you very much.

Maybe I am a lazy bum, but I have sense enough to realise that no matter whether you vote for Republican or Democrat, you're going to have to put up with decisions you don't agree with, and it's impossible to predict what they will be. I don't buy into the whole 'Change!' ideal that's thrown about my less-than idealistic politician, I just don't. But if I do I'll get right down to the polling station.

[Kurtz]

Here's a better statement: People who don't vote are lazy bums who don't care who runs their government, and so they will have to deal with whatever person other people deem fit to run his/her life.

So if you don't vote, don't whine about who won.

I think by voting you accept how the institution is and have no right to complain about it.

[Corvis]

I'll be sure and vote for the other party when some guy with a bad haircut and tiny moustache comes out onto the scene. Otherwise, you're just voting for a douchebag or a turd sandwich.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

I think it is more apathy. Laziness gives the idea that what you are doing is wrong - suggesting voting is right, but you're not bothered to do it. Apathy is a bit deeper than laziness, where there is no real moral judgement. It could be that you believe it won't make a difference which way you vote.

So use a thesis with apathy, not laziness. I don't think laziness gets the full picture.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

Indeed. I'm don't choose not to vote because I care about politics but I'm too lazy to get up, I don't vote because I'm completely apathetic to politics.

George Carlin

[Sir Winston Churchill]

So basically you sit there and talk about how the government never changes and that's why you don't vote, and you wonder why it never changes when only the people who actually vote (the same people that are not the ones that don't vote) get only their say.

You cannot sit that and never vote for change, else change will never happen. Yeah, it seems like nothing ever changes, but it will never ever EVER change if you never try to do something about it and just give up because change doesn't happen quick enough for you.

And you're right, the whole land-locked "Republican vs. Democrat" fight has things in pretty much a standstill with people having to compromise (which is actually what our nation was founded on, compromise). Suppose though we vote for a third party, or no parties at all, yet that never happens because no one gets up and fights for it.

Jus' saying.

[Corvis]

You cannot sit that and never vote for change, else change will never happen. Yeah, it seems like nothing ever changes, but it will never ever EVER change if you never try to do something about it and just give up because change doesn't happen quick enough for you.

Nothing changes "quick enough" for me, because nothing changes fundamentally whether you vote or not. People will still be people, and my apathy is more due to a severe disappointment with humanity than any mere political changes not occurring.

And you're right, the whole land-locked "Republican vs. Democrat" fight has things in pretty much a standstill with people having to compromise (which is actually what our nation was founded on, compromise).

Our two parties are shifting more and more to vilifying and conditioning citizens into thinking that the other "side" wants to see America fail, that they have an agenda and would love nothing more than America to sink to the bottom of the world cause... Well, cause they're evil. Or something. So no, I'm apathetic with our current system because there doesn't seem to be any hope for our ridiculous politicians in compromising over the simplest things, and we allow this to happen. We may have been founded on the beliefs of compromise, but then again human beings are stubborn morons too.

Suppose though we vote for a third party, or no parties at all, yet that never happens because no one gets up and fights for it.

Jus' saying.

That's what I'm doing. I'm dissenting by not voting for the corrupt, opportunistic weasels who run our countries simply because they're not any more educated, intelligent, or dignified than the rest of us. But because they grew up and became career Politicians for the power and the money.

[Enemy of the State]

Don't vote, it only encourages them.

[Ramashan]

And, more importantly, is voting for some one other than the main two candidates we are expected to vote for throwing your vote away?

When you look at the ballot there are always at least three other names on there that you never heard of who you are perfectly able to vote for. I honestly wish everyone, in cosmic attempt to simply rebel against the lunacy of the process, chose to vote for that guy they never heard of. Imagine the news stations surprise and shock when they realize that none of their motion graphics apply to the outcome.

[Oldgamer]

And, more importantly, is voting for some one other than the main two candidates we are expected to vote for throwing your vote away?

When you look at the ballot there are always at least three other names on there that you never heard of who you are perfectly able to vote for. I honestly wish everyone, in cosmic attempt to simply rebel against the lunacy of the process, chose to vote for that guy they never heard of. Imagine the news stations surprise and shock when they realize that none of their motion graphics apply to the outcome.

The only political race in America where voting "third" could work is in Alaska, where the GOP candidate Senate is only 1 point ahead of the GOP Senator (who is mounting a write-in campaign). The DEM candidate will not win. Accordingly, the citizens of Alaska will either elect a conservative Republican, or send a moderate Republican back to the Senate.

Most third party candidacies merely "spoil" a race. For example, to two 43% victories of Bill Clinton, in the 1990's (Ross Perot was the third party factor). In Illinois, Bill Brady will be elected to the Governor's mansion primarily because the Green Party candidate is polling at 5%. Brady is about 4 points ahead of the incumbent governor, Pat Quinn (who became governor when former Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached and removed by his own party).