A non-voter and proud of it, or, Why are people mean to me?

[Bella]

A coworker friend and I came to the conclusion (seperately) that voting in the United States is a waste of time - not because we're liberals or conservatives, although she would technically be labelled a conservative and I a liberal, but because we think the process stinks and is a waste of our time and effort. We made buttons for our jackets that say "not voting in '04 (or ever)" and you wouldn't believe the shit that we've gotten for it.

First of all, you have the bleeding-heart liberals who grab my hand and say "don't you know what it was like for your suffragette sisters who gave their lives for your right to vote back in the early 20th century?" Yeah, yeah. So guilt me into voting. That will really do something. Then you have the other people (don't know if they're conservatives or not but they're definately 'other') who say "this is a great country and you're spitting in its face" or "you're not really a citizen of America." I recognise that America is a great country and I think I have my certificate in my safety deposit box that says I became a citizen on 21 March 1985, thank you very much.

What really grabs me are the people who say "geez, you're wasting your vote - just go out and vote for Bush/Kerry, so at least Kerry/Bush doesn't get your vote." Um, how am I wasting my vote if I don't vote, versus going out and voting for someone I don't want to be president just so I use my vote? It's like having a dollar and flushing it down the toilet versus spending it on a rotten apple - either way, you don't have your dollar, except that in the second situation you're stuck with a rotten apple.

I just don't understand how not voting is seen as such a huge smear against my character. I have the right to choose and I choose not to vote. Just because I made a choice that isn't popular and that some people think is "wrong" doesn't mean that I'm suddenly an irresponsible citizen. It's damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't: the Repblicans think that the Democrats are wrong and irresponsible and the Democrats think the Republicans are wrong and irresponsible. So where do we fit in?

We were asked to remove the buttons from our jackets, and two days later everyone else in the store had to remove their Bush/Kerry pins and other political items ("Real Women Vote!") or personal items from their nametags. At least the management was fair and evenhanded on the subject.

[Dingfod]

I used to think my vote didn't really matter either, but I voted anyway, usually tossing my statewide or national election votes away on a third party which had no chance anyway, kind of my little protest. On judicial retention votes I would automatically vote no just on the principal that nobody, not even judges should be secure for life. Well, one time, this nice fellow I actually knew personally, a county court judge, lost his retention election by... ONE VOTE!

[wildernesse]

We're responsible for the community we live in--how it is shaped and what its future and present is and will be . People who don't involve themselves in the mechanics of this are abdicating their responsibility to their community--they aren't pulling their own weight. So it boils down to it not being fair to the community.

I think of it in the same way that I would think of someone saying: I'm proud that I'm a poor mother!

[The Lone Ranger]

While I'd agree that there is often no one to vote for, there's usually someone to vote against.

Let me ask you: would you rather see Bush or Kerry in the White House next year? If you say "Kerry," but don't vote for him, you're making it ever-so-slightly more likely that Bush will win the election.

As corrupt as the system is, throwing up your hands and saying "to Hell with it" is surrendering. The fewer people who vote, the less the politicians will have to worry about trying to appeal to the interests of the "common people," and the more they can focus on catering to their true masters -- the rich and powerful.

Remember this: the rich are not going to stop voting. The more poor and middle-class people give up on voting, the more blatantly will politicians be able to ignore their well-being.

Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

I'm almost 36 years old and have never voted for anything in my life, but I'm going to vote in this presidential election. Not because I've had a change of heart and suddenly believe that voting matters, but because lisarea is giving me a dollar to vote for all the candidates she picked out and I can really use that dollar. The only time I considered voting in the past was the last presidential election, and suffice it to say that the guy I would've voted for lost the state I was in but garnered the most votes overall. And lost. And now I live in GWB's home state... hmmm.

[John the Non-Baptist]

Assuming you don't live in a vacuum, what's essentially happening is that you're entrusting your life and livelihood to people who may or may not have your best interests at heart. You're saying you're happy to go along with whatever happens--which might work out fine until some random administration policy hits home. Maybe you lose overtime benefits. Maybe you get drafted. Maybe they start rounding up all the Minnesotans and putting them in concentration camps.

Extreme example? Sure. But by voting you not only stand up for your right to control your own destiny, you join a vast community of people who are standing up for theirs. An apathetic populace won't stand long.

[LadyShea]

I would be a bit more sympathetic Bree, if your ballot only had the President to vote on. However, a ballot includes judges, Congresspeople and Senators, oftentimes important proposals or amendments...things which CAN affect your day to day life.

For example, in Nevada, we are voting on competing amendment proposals regarding tort reform that will greatly impact health care, as well as a a minimum wage increase (Frankie, as a tipped employee, makes minimum wage) These are important issues and I want to have my say. Skip the President if you want, or write in Micky Mouse, or whatever, but do let your voice be heard on the other issues.

[viscousmemories]

Assuming you don't live in a vacuum, what's essentially happening is that you're entrusting your life and livelihood to people who may or may not have your best interests at heart. You're saying you're happy to go along with whatever happens--which might work out fine until some random administration policy hits home. Maybe you lose overtime benefits. Maybe you get drafted. Maybe they start rounding up all the Minnesotans and putting them in concentration camps.

Extreme example? Sure. But by voting you not only stand up for your right to control your own destiny, you join a vast community of people who are standing up for theirs. An apathetic populace won't stand long.
Well just speaking for myself, I have never considered not voting equivelant to saying I'm happy to go along with whatever happens. More like I'm resigned to going along with that over which I have no real control. As much as I would like to believe that "every vote counts", that just obviously isn't true. And even if it were, there are never any guarantees that the people you vote for will actually do what they promise once in office.

I dunno. I just think it's more than a little idealistic to equate voting in a presidential election with "controlling your own destiny". My destiny is unlikely to be profoundly affected by the administration of the government over the next four years, and even if it is I have no real way of knowing whether that change is more likely to be for the better or worse under Kerry than it would be under GWB.

Then again I'm cynical and pessimistic and it's past my bedtime. :)

[John the Non-Baptist]

I understand where you're coming from.

My response is this (and it's my bedtime too, so who knows how articulate this will sound): Even if I believed as you did, and felt pretty certain that my destiny was unlikely to be affected in the next four years, I could still think of a fairly large group of people whose destiny almost certainly will be affected: young men and women of draft age.

So, hypothetically, let's say the upcoming election was to be a referendum on the question "Should the military draft be reinstated?" Even though, at age 44, I'm probably safe from such a thing and thus unlikely to be affected by the result, I'd cast a vote on behalf of those who would be.

That's why I'll be voting Nov. 2. I'm not voting just for me, but for everyone who shares my views.

I wonder what this post will look like in the morning. Zzzzz--good night, all.

[Petra]

Shit, I wish I could vote in this US Presidential election. It feels like so much on such a big scale is riding on this one. :(

[Socratoad]

Apathy apathy everywhere but who gives a damn :doh:

[Bella]

Skip the President if you want, or write in Micky Mouse, or whatever, but do let your voice be heard on the other issues.
You are right, LadyShea, and I've forgotten this. Thanks for reminding me! Local elections are where votes really do count - one vote can make a difference. Not so in the national election, which is another reason why I am completely apathetic.

[lisarea]

I'm almost 36 years old and have never voted for anything in my life, but I'm going to vote in this presidential election. Not because I've had a change of heart and suddenly believe that voting matters, but because lisarea is giving me a dollar to vote for all the candidates she picked out and I can really use that dollar.

Ahem. Just a clarification. I will give you a dollar to vote, PLUS I have provided you with the correct answers, WHICH THE DOLLAR DOES NOT COMPEL YOU TO ABIDE BY. So the coercion was just a coercion to vote, not to vote in any specific manner.

Just so we're all clear on that.

As far as the arguments against voting, it's true. Except in rare cases like that guy Warren fired, it's unlikely that, even at the most local level, your specific vote is going to make a difference. (Although it can and does happen sometimes at the local level.)

The fact is, it's just a collective effort. It works when we all do it, but nobody individually can make that happen. There really is very little personal incentive to vote (except that, if you're registered and agree to vote, I will pay you a dollar, too, and give you the correct answers if you'd like).

It's just one big giant national compromise. I've been having a problem with voting for Kerry. I've since decided that I can vote for him with a clear conscience, but I'm traditionally sort of a protest voter, because the major party candidates never come close enough to what I think is right. But there's a big compromise element to that aspect, too. Everyone who votes gets a vote, with no preference given to those whose opinions are better informed, better argued, or anything. Everyone's counts the same, regardless. It's not really fair. I don't like that my vote, which I usually think about long and hard and only make after I research and understand what I'm voting for, counts the same as someone who walks in and votes a straight party line based on some irrelevant social issue or name recognition or something like that.

But I'm not about to protest that by not voting. I'm OK with knowing that my vote is not significant in itself, but just one of many individual votes that make up a big community compromise. People probably take offense to people who refuse to vote because it is a chore. It's just something we do as a community effort, not because our personal vote is going to make such a big difference, but because it's something we all need to do for it to work. You do not end up seeing an individual result for your vote. If you think about it, it really is a poor use of your personal time. The result is spread out among many people. It's a team effort of a whole bunch of individuals who sacrifice a little of their time to make their decisions as part of a huge national|state|county|city|district wide effort. It can seem almost petulant, in a way, when people say, effectively, "If I'm not going to get my way, I'm not going to bother." The goal is not to get your way. The goal is to be one of a great many who all go to their polling places to participate in the democratic process.

And I actually kind of like voting. I like walking down to the polling place, filling out my ballot, and getting my sticker, which I put on my steering wheel, and try to keep intact until the next time I get a sticker. It's almost like a holiday for me, only slightly less pointless on an individual level than other occasions.

So, anyway, want a dollar? I figure that, even though I'm still all unemployed, I should be able to scrape up a buck for anyone who needs that incentive to go vote. And unless I get a million requests, I'll do crib sheets for anyone who wants them, too. Which the dollar would not compel you to abide by. In fact, the two offers are not a package, but two discrete and unrelated offers. Just so everyone's clear on that.

[LadyXoc]

I used to think it didn't matter. The last three years have shown me differently. I'm not marrying these slobs, I'm hiring them to do a job. I don't even care if Kerry is my dream candidate, I just care if he has a big enough shovel to clear a semi path through this shit. And I will vote, though I'm fed up with the posturing and the corruption and the vapid stupidity of idiots who prefer slogans and cartoon characters to rational discussion over serious issues. I will vote and carry signs and step through ankle deep dogshit to put an end to this petty, posturing, bigoted, incomptent Bushocracy.

As long as I still have a job, I could give y'all 50 cents on lisarea's dollar.

[Roland98]

Not so in the national election, which is another reason why I am completely apathetic.

I'm surprised people still have this attitude after the last presidential election, when 2 states (Florida and New Mexico) were won/lost with a margin of less than a thousand votes (537 and 363 votes, respectively). Who knows how things are going to turn out this year? The last 4 years could have been very different if just a thousand more Gore supporters turned out in those states.

[LadyShea]

Not so in the national election, which is another reason why I am completely apathetic.

I'm surprised people still have this attitude after the last presidential election, when 2 states (Florida and New Mexico) were won/lost with a margin of less than a thousand votes (537 and 363 votes, respectively). Who knows how things are going to turn out this year? The last 4 years could have been very different if just a thousand more Gore supporters turned out in those states.

Yep, I am in a battle ground state....my vote might make a difference.

[livius drusus]

It's just something we do as a community effort, not because our personal vote is going to make such a big difference, but because it's something we all need to do for it to work. You do not end up seeing an individual result for your vote. If you think about it, it really is a poor use of your personal time. The result is spread out among many people. It's a team effort of a whole bunch of individuals who sacrifice a little of their time to make their decisions as part of a huge national|state|county|city|district wide effort. It can seem almost petulant, in a way, when people say, effectively, "If I'm not going to get my way, I'm not going to bother." The goal is not to get your way. The goal is to be one of a great many who all go to their polling places to participate in the democratic process.

Bingo. I'd never thought about it exactly these terms before but it strikes me as dead-on. Voting is a collective effort we make to be involved in our democracy. The systemic failures and injustices of the system don't change that, nor does the fact that our individual action means nothing taken by itself.

And I actually kind of like voting. I like walking down to the polling place, filling out my ballot, and getting my sticker, which I put on my steering wheel, and try to keep intact until the next time I get a sticker.

I like it too, especially with the punch ballots 'cause that's just plain fun. I don't share your sticker fetish, although I probably would if they were puffy or scratch-n-sniff or something.

[Blake]

A coworker friend and I came to the conclusion (seperately) that voting in the United States is a waste of time - not because we're liberals or conservatives, although she would technically be labelled a conservative and I a liberal, but because we think the process stinks and is a waste of our time and effort. We made buttons for our jackets that say "not voting in '04 (or ever)" and you wouldn't believe the shit that we've gotten for it.
I don't think you deserved quite that much shit, but honestly, you do deserve some shit. The fact that the process stinks doesn't change the fact that voting still is one of the most powerful political acts you can do, and frankly, it takes very little time and effort.

First of all, you have the bleeding-heart liberals who grab my hand and say "don't you know what it was like for your suffragette sisters who gave their lives for your right to vote back in the early 20th century?" Yeah, yeah. So guilt me into voting. That will really do something. Then you have the other people (don't know if they're conservatives or not but they're definately 'other') who say "this is a great country and you're spitting in its face" or "you're not really a citizen of America." I recognise that America is a great country and I think I have my certificate in my safety deposit box that says I became a citizen on 21 March 1985, thank you very much.
Yes, guilting you into voting is ridiculous. Yes, speaking in essentials, you're a citizen. However, functionally, if you don't do the things a citizen is entitled to do, then in a sense, no, you're not a citizen.

What really grabs me are the people who say "geez, you're wasting your vote - just go out and vote for Bush/Kerry, so at least Kerry/Bush doesn't get your vote." Um, how am I wasting my vote if I don't vote, versus going out and voting for someone I don't want to be president just so I use my vote? It's like having a dollar and flushing it down the toilet versus spending it on a rotten apple - either way, you don't have your dollar, except that in the second situation you're stuck with a rotten apple.
That's the result of America's winner-take-all system with two corrupt parties with a stranglehold on power: you're always voting for the lesser of two evils. Nonetheless, Kerry is so much less evil than Bush that this time around I don't think it's a close call. A half-rotten apple is so much better than a poisoned composted apple; at least you can eat half of it.

I just don't understand how not voting is seen as such a huge smear against my character. I have the right to choose and I choose not to vote. Just because I made a choice that isn't popular and that some people think is "wrong" doesn't mean that I'm suddenly an irresponsible citizen.
We have the right to choose to do all kinds of bad things. It's a smear against your character because voting is really easy to do, and despite the narrowed choices in our not-really-a-democracy, it still makes big differences. Especially since you're in Minnesota, which is a swing state this time around, so your vote for president actually does count. If you were in Massachusetts, or Georgia, or California, or any of the other states that are reliably one way or the other, I wouldn't care that much. But in a state that could go either way, it makes me pissed--especially since I don't have that chance, being in a state where my presidential vote can't influence the outcome.

It's damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't: the Repblicans think that the Democrats are wrong and irresponsible and the Democrats think the Republicans are wrong and irresponsible. So where do we fit in?
They're both wrong and irresponsible; in my informed opinion, the Democrats are less wrong and irresponsible, and especially at lower more local levels, there are sometimes actual good choices for candidate, like Greens or various independents, or even individual Democrats (or Republicans) with integrity. Non-voters fit in nowhere: they refuse to play the game, abdicating their responsibility, and consequently get shit from everyone.

I'm sorry, Bree; I just don't think you have a good justification.

[ApostateAbe]

Bree, you should be the founder of an organization called, "Don't Rock the Vote."

I am voting. Here is why: People who don't vote don't have their opinions taken seriously by politicians. For example, young people don't vote. As a result, the rights of young people are removed. People between the ages of 18 and 21 can't buy alcohol. Why was that law passed? Why not? No senator, governor, mayor, commissioner, judge, or president is going to cater to a voting block that doesn't exist. If it weren't for parents, young adults would be drafted into the military and sent to the slaughterhouse. Why not?

[Adam]

For the longest time, I refused to vote on the grounds that the system was broken and corrupt and, while I was implicitly supporting the broken system by living in this nation without attempting to stage a revolution, I didn't want to explicitly support the broken system by actively participating in it. Although I retain my convictions that a) the system is broken and b) the major parties are both corrupt, I've become much more pragmatic over the years. I take it as a given that my government is going to take many of the principles I care most about, drag them through the mud, step on them, and leave them out in the rain. Having accepted that difficult truth, it's mush easier to accept the notion that I can participate in a corrupt political system in order to nudge my government toward behaving ever so slightly less monstrously.

It boils down to this. I'm very much a civil libertarian, an internationalist, and an economic progressive. Neither major party reflects my views, and third parties are, in a winner take all system, largely a waste of time. However, I'm willing to vote for the party least likely to take an authoritarian, nationalist, economically exploitive view of the way a country ought to be run, and that's the Democrats. They may take my ideals, place them face down, and violate them without benefit of lubrication, but the Rebuplicans do the same, and wipe their dicks on the curtains afterwards.

The idea is to limit the damage done by the corporate parties while we find a better way to choose our leaders. Voting is one part of it, to keep the party likely to do the least amount of damage in power (whichever party that may be, according to your particular views, but the correct answer is the Democrats :P)...more importantly, I try to be politely outspoken about my ideas, to get them into the public consciousness, and to encourage others to do the same. Hoefully, in the not too far off future, an alternative party will be able to gain enough support to displace one of the big teo, and then, maybe, just maybe, that party will be able to enact true election reform, so that we aren't stuck with two bland corporate conglomerates to vote for.

That was sort of rambling, and probably doesn't make much sense...

[Beth]

Not so in the national election, which is another reason why I am completely apathetic.

I'm surprised people still have this attitude after the last presidential election, when 2 states (Florida and New Mexico) were won/lost with a margin of less than a thousand votes (537 and 363 votes, respectively). Who knows how things are going to turn out this year? The last 4 years could have been very different if just a thousand more Gore supporters turned out in those states.

Yep, I am in a battle ground state....my vote might make a difference.Yup, I feel the same. I've always voted, but the past Presidential election showed me just how much my one vote mattered.

[Beth]

I like it too, especially with the punch ballots 'cause that's just plain fun. I don't share your sticker fetish, although I probably would if they were puffy or scratch-n-sniff or something.I miss the old ballots. I had such a blast punching the votes in. Now it's just some sucky touch screen system that has no data back up and can be hacked with the security loopholes, unless they were fixed.

[Bella]

Yes, speaking in essentials, you're a citizen. However, functionally, if you don't do the things a citizen is entitled to do, then in a sense, no, you're not a citizen.
I really don't understand how, if one doesn't take advantage of a right that is entitled to them, they somehow abdicate their citizenship to the country. I'm entitled to vote, not required to vote.

Especially since you're in Minnesota, which is a swing state this time around, so your vote for president actually does count. If you were in Massachusetts, or Georgia, or California, or any of the other states that are reliably one way or the other, I wouldn't care that much. But in a state that could go either way, it makes me pissed--especially since I don't have that chance, being in a state where my presidential vote can't influence the outcome.
I'm probably going to get a lot of shit for admitting this, but I don't understand how living in a swing state makes my vote count. Minnesota still has an electoral college, which means they can still vote against the populace, right?

[John the Non-Baptist]

Minnesota still has an electoral college, which means they can still vote against the populace, right?[/COLOR]

No.

Whoever wins the popular vote in your state wins those electoral votes.

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm probably going to get a lot of shit for admitting this, but I don't understand how living in a swing state makes my vote count. Minnesota still has an electoral college, which means they can still vote against the populace, right?

In theory they could, I suppose, but if the popular vote in Minnesota is for Kerry, say, and any of the electors "defect" and cast their ballot for Bush, there would be Hell to pay. I doubt very much any elector would actually cast a ballot contrary to the way the popular vote goes in his/her state.

Cheers,

Michael

[Gawen]

I have voted in every election I could since Nixon's second term...but have never voted for a President due to electoral college. The popular vote doesn't count, but if anti-Bush people come out in numbers, yet still loose, it will hopefully show neo-cons a larger minority is displeased.
Yet, if BushCo wins, it'll make no difference anyway. And who knows what will happen by 2008 that will cause us to vote or not vote for whatever reasons.

All of us have a right to vote, with a few exceptions such as convicts, for example. But it is not a civic duty in my opinion, as long as the nation remains a republic represented by an electoral college in the case of Presidential elections and not a true democracy. By this I mean that a democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them and not representatives that vote for them.

I have no problem with people that don't vote, and yes by their citizenship, they still hold the right to bitch. Only when the Presidential elections are concluded by a majority vote of the citizens is it wrong not to vote. And then I am still undecided as to the right not to vote. Consider Australia where last I heard it is mandatory to vote.

So if Bree or anyone decides not to vote for a President, I have no qualms. But I do wish more people would get out and vote when their vote really does count, especially in their community.

[John the Non-Baptist]

I have voted in every election I could since Nixon's second term...but have never voted for a President due to electoral college. The popular vote doesn't count, but if anti-Bush people come out in numbers, yet still loose, it will hopefully show neo-cons a larger minority is displeased.
Yet, if BushCo wins, it'll make no difference anyway. And who knows what will happen by 2008 that will cause us to vote or not vote for whatever reasons.

All of us have a right to vote, with a few exceptions such as convicts, for example. But it is not a civic duty in my opinion, as long as the nation remains a republic represented by an electoral college in the case of Presidential elections and not a true democracy. By this I mean that a democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them and not representatives that vote for them.

I have no problem with people that don't vote, and yes by their citizenship, they still hold the right to bitch. Only when the Presidential elections are concluded by a majority vote of the citizens is it wrong not to vote. And then I am still undecided as to the right not to vote. Consider Australia where last I heard it is mandatory to vote.

So if Bree or anyone decides not to vote for a President, I have no qualms. But I do wish more people would get out and vote when their vote really does count, especially in their community.

I'm having trouble seeing how the electoral college means your vote doesn't count. Let's say I vote for Kerry, who wins Iowa by one vote--I'd be damn thankful I got to the polls and voted, and I'd definitely say that voted counted big-time.

[Blake]

I really don't understand how, if one doesn't take advantage of a right that is entitled to them, they somehow abdicate their citizenship to the country. I'm entitled to vote, not required to vote.
No, you're not required by law to vote. You are however required by civic responsibility to participate in the affairs of the republic. If you don't exercise the most central rights and privileges of citizenship, then functionally, you might as well not be a citizen. A republican form of government doesn't work without the active participation of the citizenry. That's part of the reason the country isn't working very well.

I'm probably going to get a lot of shit for admitting this, but I don't understand how living in a swing state makes my vote count. Minnesota still has an electoral college, which means they can still vote against the populace, right?
As other people have pointed out, theoretically, yes. In practice, every thirty years or so one elector out of the 538 doesn't vote the way the majority in his/her state vote, so yes, your vote counts.

The popular vote doesn't count ....
I believe in every presidential election but four, the majority of the popular vote has been matched by a majority of the electoral vote--so this strikes me as largely wrong, despite being technically correct in the sense that it's the electors that directly make the President, and the voters only indirectly.

But it is not a civic duty in my opinion, as long as the nation remains a republic represented by an electoral college in the case of Presidential elections and not a true democracy. By this I mean that a democracy is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them and not representatives that vote for them.
As I've already written above, I flatly disagree with you that voting is not a civic duty. I also do not think that an electoral college is an essential distinguishing characteristic of a republic, and I am horrified by the thought of a pure democracy unlimited by a constitution.

But I do wish more people would get out and vote when their vote really does count, especially in their community.
Your vote always counts, even when it doesn't. If Ralph Nader had gotten 5% of the vote in 2000, he still wouldn't be President, but the Greens would have the benefit of public election financing. And I'm seriously thinking about voting for Kerry despite the certainty that Georgia will go to Bush, because I detect so much Kerry support here that I think his showing might be stronger than anyone anticipates--which could mean that in 2008, the Republicans will have to spend resources defending what had been heretofore a safe state.

[LadyShea]

Minnesota still has an electoral college, which means they can still vote against the populace, right?[/COLOR]

No.

Whoever wins the popular vote in your state wins those electoral votes.

Actually, there is no law against the electors voting against popular vote.

[dave_a]

Kerry is so much less evil than Bush that this time around I don't think it's a close call. A half-rotten apple is so much better than a poisoned composted apple; at least you can eat half of it.



Not to nitpick (ok I am nitpicking), but a poisoned apple that has been composted is unlikely to contain any poison. Composting results in organic matter being reduced to base elements.

that is all :P

[dave_a]

[color=indigo]A coworker friend and I came to the conclusion (seperately) that voting in the United States is a waste of time - not because we're liberals or conservatives, although she would technically be labelled a conservative and I a liberal, but because we think the process stinks and is a waste of our time and effort. We made buttons for our jackets that say "not voting in '04 (or ever)" and you wouldn't believe the shit that we've gotten for it.



If you think Bush is a bad guy to have in office and Kerry(or Nader/Badnarik/whomever) would be less bad then I don't understand why you wouldn't want to vote.

If you think they are all roughly equally bad, just different flavors of the same shit, then I can totally understand not voting.

However, as has been pointed out the presidential elections involve choosing more than your preference for president and surely there has to be at least one office up for grabs where after researching the candidates you would have a strong preference for someone or at least a strong desire to get rid of someone/prevent them from winning.

As far as your vote counting, it absolutely does. The presidential race, according to the polls may very well come down to a single state deciding the winner. Many local elections crown a winner who has only several hundred or thousand votes so each vote carries a great deal if weight.

I can understand your being apathetic or disillusioned, but it isn't a waste of time if you take a couple hours to research the offices that will be on the ballot and the candidates you have to choose from.

If you really can't get into voting then just think about the top 1,2 or 3 issues at the local/state/federal level that are your hot button issues and vote for candidates who appear to support those issues.

[Gawen]

No, you're not required by law to vote. You are however required by civic responsibility to participate in the affairs of the republic. If you don't exercise the most central rights and privileges of citizenship, then functionally, you might as well not be a citizen. A republican form of government doesn't work without the active participation of the citizenry. That's part of the reason the country isn't working very well.Well ya see. It's statements like this...coupled with statements like this:
If you think Bush is a bad guy to have in office and Kerry(or Nader/Badnarik/whomever) would be less bad then I don't understand why you wouldn't want to vote....make no sense to me. Just because one guy is less bad than the other, why vote? It's the principal of it. Less bad does not always mean better...which makes this statement truein a way:
If you think they are all roughly equally bad, just different flavors of the same shit, then I can totally understand not voting.

I also do not think that an electoral college is an essential distinguishing characteristic of a republic, and I am horrified by the thought of a pure democracy unlimited by a constitution.First, my knowledge of politics is lacking and I'm the first to admit it. And I didn't say anything about not having a constitution.

I believe in every presidential election but four, the majority of the popular vote has been matched by a majority of the electoral vote--so this strikes me as largely wrong...Once to many. It sends the signal that the electorates have usurped the vote of the people they represent. So four times this happens. That's what?...8-10 percent? What percentage does it begin to become unacceptable when the majority does not rule? Lady Shea is right when she says "Actually, there is no law against the electors voting against popular vote."

If Ralph Nader had gotten 5% of the vote in 2000, he still wouldn't be President, but the Greens would have the benefit of public election financing.This is reprehensible to me. Although I'm no Nader fan, why is he or anyone else basically barred? The entire system is screwed and needs to be totally revamped. But you and I know this will never happen.

Not to nitpick (ok I am nitpicking), but a poisoned apple that has been composted is unlikely to contain any poison. Composting results in organic matter being reduced to base elements.That would depend on the poison and how much of it there was...but I'm nit-picking as well. Still, why would anyone take the chance to eat half of a contaminated green apple? Well, because they are hungry and there is nothing else to eat. Maybe because they're hungry and don't like yellow or red apples. But there's still that chance that they may injest some of that poison.

Bush is to far to the right; a poisoned yellow apple. Kerry is too far to the left; a poisoned red apple. (my opinions, naturally) Either one I eat I know I'll get sour stomach. And because of the secret ballot, I usually do not discuss the candidates. I'll never say who I voted for at the end, if I vote at all. And until the electoral college is disbanded or the majority vote counts 100% in all elections, I will still retain the right to bitch. If they have the possibility to usurp the vote, I can bitch without voting.

[Petra]

Bree, you've been through a fair bit of crap over being in a gay relationship; paying for college, etc, etc.

So, why don't you vote for the party that is most likely to respect your relationship and may even go as far as civil unions that will recognise property rights and all that kind of thing. And the party that will be more likely to help you in college.

That party is not the Republicans. :wink:


Please vote, Bree. As a citizen of the world, I beg you to vote. Just this once. Please. Please vote for all of us out here in the world who are also affected by Bush in one way or another, but do not have a say in what the sole superpower does with our planet. We need you, Bree. We need every last one of you to get out the vote - for your own lives at home, and for a bunch of other people's lives out here in the 'other' world.

:titanic:

[John the Non-Baptist]

Lady Shea is right when she says "Actually, there is no law against the electors voting against popular vote."

Yes, but this makes it sound like there's a long history of electors just voting willy-nilly, in every state, in every election--which is not the case at all. You can feel certain that it's not going to happen.

[Dingfod]

Shit, I wish I could vote in this US Presidential election. It feels like so much on such a big scale is riding on this one. :(I vote for giving you and ten million or so like you a vote.

[Scotty]

Interesting.

So, the partys are corrupt. One more corrupt than the other (the greater and lesser evil as it were). Why is that the case?

If you replace the party at an election but it is still corrupt, doesn't that mean you haven't put in place a new party? Doesn't that mean that the people who are truly in power are still in power?

With the electoral college, you vote into office representatives that then pick the candidate from a list given to them. When do we pick who we get to vote for? You would think that we would have a direct line to who gets put on the ballot, not what somebody else thinks even though we put them in office. How do we really know what they are going to do?

Plus, how do we vote the entire system/partys away? I'm for that but haven't seen that on the ballot ("To remove your government, please check here with a #2 pencil"). I want to fire the entire government and do an audit from an outside firm so we have a little accountability.

-Scott

[Socratoad]

Interesting.

So, the partys are corrupt. One more corrupt than the other (the greater and lesser evil as it were). Why is that the case?

If you replace the party at an election but it is still corrupt, doesn't that mean you haven't put in place a new party? Doesn't that mean that the people who are truly in power are still in power?

With the electoral college, you vote into office representatives that then pick the candidate from a list given to them. When do we pick who we get to vote for? You would think that we would have a direct line to who gets put on the ballot, not what somebody else thinks even though we put them in office. How do we really know what they are going to do?

Plus, how do we vote the entire system/partys away? I'm for that but haven't seen that on the ballot ("To remove your government, please check here with a #2 pencil"). I want to fire the entire government and do an audit from an outside firm so we have a little accountability.

-Scott
:clap:
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

[Petra]

Scotty, that would be great if you could do that. The sheer size of the US would make a change to your electoral system difficult; but worth it the end, I think.

One of the lucky things about being in a small country is that we were able to change our system from first past the post to proportional representation fairly painlessly. About 3 elections ago we had a few public debates followed by a national referendum, and had to vote for one or the other system. Proportional representation won, and we restructured everything accordingly. It was a good move.

Perhaps it won't be too many years before a significant public majority effects any reforms needed in the US to make for a fairer and more transparent system. :)

[lisarea]

In most states, it isn't illegal for electors to vote differently from the popular vote. In fact, that's one of the justifications for the electoral college in the first place. Electors who don't vote according to their mandate are called "faithless electors," and there are currently rules or laws prohibiting that in some states, and in some states there aren't.

Click on the first link on this page (http://www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_statelaws.htm) for a table showing the guidelines for each state. Although even in states where electors are required by law or pledge to vote a certain way, the punishments are relatively minor.

Here's a list of faithless electors (http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm) and a description of how the EV system works. Although there have been many cases of faithless electors, it has never changed the outcome of an election.

Personally, I don't like the electoral college system, particularly as it stands now. The electoral college has never served to protect the American government from the decisions of an uninformed populace, which is one of its justifications, and I don't think that its modern justification--states' rights--is all that convincing anymore, either.

But I still don't understand how not voting in a presidential election is an articulate protest against the electoral college. To protest the electoral college, become a faithless elector yourself, write letters to the editor, propose ideas for eliminating it. That gets the message across. Not voting in federal elections doesn't reliably parse as a protest. For any protest to be effective, it has to be clear what you're protesting and why.

Overall, while I don't think not voting makes you a non-citizen or anything, I do think it's the responsibility of a good citizen to research issues and candidates, and to participate in the democratic process by voting, at the very least.

In short, the arguments against voting so far are:

1. My vote doesn't count enough, or the choices aren't close enough to my personal beliefs. This, to me, is all about the compromise. This is a huge, diverse nation, and as such, no single vote is going to sway a national election. Your vote is very unlikely to be a single deciding factor, particularly on the national scale. You are, as you should be, one of a great many. And again, because of the sheer size of the country, compromise is going to play a major role in the choices available to you. The general idea is to narrow down the field of candidates before the general election to two, so that the popular vote is more likely to be a plurality and go to the preferred candidate.

2. The system is broken. Yes, yes, it is. The system is ineffective, it doesn't accurately represent the people, and it needs to be changed. The solution to this is to do something directly, rather than trying to register protest by not voting. Again, it's ineffective and inarticulate. Not voting, if it registers on anyone's radar at all, is more likely to be interpreted as indecision, apathy, or ignorance. You have to make your message clear if you really expect anyone to pay attention to it.

So I don't think that not voting makes you a bad person or undeserving of citizenship. I do not, however, think it's anything to be proud of, and I, like a lot of people, will tend to interpret it as a selfish decision and may even discount non-voters' political opinions to some extent because of it. It still reads as apathy to me, and those who are apathetic and uninterested in the subject they're discussing tend not to have informed opinions. In other words, if you don't care enough about the subject to take a few minutes out of your day to vote once a year, or even once every four years, it strikes me that you just don't take it all that seriously.

[Bella]

[QUOTE=Blake]No, you're not required by law to vote. You are however required by civic responsibility to participate in the affairs of the republic. If you don't exercise the most central rights and privileges of citizenship, then functionally, you might as well not be a citizen. A republican form of government doesn't work without the active participation of the citizenry. That's part of the reason the country isn't working very well.Well ya see. It's statements like this...coupled with statements like this:
If you think Bush is a bad guy to have in office and Kerry(or Nader/Badnarik/whomever) would be less bad then I don't understand why you wouldn't want to vote....make no sense to me. Just because one guy is less bad than the other, why vote? It's the principal of it. Less bad does not always mean better...which makes this statement truein a way:
If you think they are all roughly equally bad, just different flavors of the same shit, then I can totally understand not voting..
This is exactly where I'm coming from. Same shit, different flavours.
So, why don't you vote for the party that is most likely to respect your relationship and may even go as far as civil unions that will recognise property rights and all that kind of thing. And the party that will be more likely to help you in college.
The Democratic candidate has already made it clear that he does not support gay marriage. Even if Kerry/Edwards did support it, it is highly unlikely that the US would ever adopt such a law - I just don't think that it will happen, and probably won't happen during my lifetime. I've come to grips with it. The government won't recognise my marriage, but I can still love Jek. To me, we are married whether the government, my family, or anyone else says otherwise.

[Petra]

The Democratic candidate has already made it clear that he does not support gay marriage. Even if Kerry/Edwards did support it, it is highly unlikely that the US would ever adopt such a law - I just don't think that it will happen, and probably won't happen during my lifetime. I've come to grips with it. The government won't recognise my marriage, but I can still love Jek. To me, we are married whether the government, my family, or anyone else says otherwise.

The Democrats are more likely to enact civil unions at some point in the future, while the Republicans wish to alter the constitution to disallow GLBT civil unions completely (iirc).

And even without that, Bree, there is so much more to this fight. There's a fucking war with people dying and shit. No, I don't think Kerry can magically fix it, but he'll have a better chance of fixing it than BushCo. We have rising fundamentalism in the world, and your current administration is helping that right along. Fundamentalism and terrorism go hand in hand. We need some reason in the world, and I'm very hopeful that Kerry has what it takes to bring things back onto a more sane path.

Please, please vote, Bree. You're a citizen of the world's sole superpower and are privileged to be able to have a say, no matter how flawed the system is.

You may feel like you're only one small voice, but you are a part of a collective - a national collective and an international one. Please help to make a difference.

[livius drusus]

So I don't think that not voting makes you a bad person or undeserving of citizenship. I do not, however, think it's anything to be proud of, and I, like a lot of people, will tend to interpret it as a selfish decision and may even discount non-voters' political opinions to some extent because of it. It still reads as apathy to me, and those who are apathetic and uninterested in the subject they're discussing tend not to have informed opinions. In other words, if you don't care enough about the subject to take a few minutes out of your day to vote once a year, or even once every four years, it strikes me that you just don't take it all that seriously.

Yup.

[wade-w]

Arguing that the system is broken and therefore voting is a waste of time is a great example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People like Bree and Gawen are a major reason that the system is broken, since a representative republic depends on an informed and actively voting populace to work correctly. Why should the politicians care what you think when voter apathy is so rampant? Not voting gives fringe elements like the religious right a much greater voice than they would otherwise have because they DO get out and vote, and politicians know this.

[Blake]

If you don't exercise the most central rights and privileges of citizenship, then functionally, you might as well not be a citizen. Well ya see. It's statements like this...coupled with statements like this:
If you think Bush is a bad guy to have in office and Kerry(or Nader/Badnarik/whomever) would be less bad then I don't understand why you wouldn't want to vote....make no sense to me. Just because one guy is less bad than the other, why vote? It's the principal of it. Less bad does not always mean better...which makes this statement truein a way:
If you think they are all roughly equally bad, just different flavors of the same shit, then I can totally understand not voting.
You vote for the least bad alternative (Kerry) because his winning has real-world benefits for many people, sometimes the difference between life and death. If you don't vote, you're sacrificing real-world pragmatism for an incoherent principle. In this case, less bad does mean better.

You didn't say that you didn't support a constitution, Gawen, but that's what granting supreme power to the people within a democracy means. A constitution limits the people's supreme power, avoiding "tyranny of the majority."

This is exactly where I'm coming from. Same shit, different flavours.
<shrug> Then you're uninformed. Not only do they taste different, but Kerry is clearly useful fertilizer-shit, whereas Bush is toxic waste. Do almost any amount of decent reading on almost any issue, and this will become clear.

The Democratic candidate has already made it clear that he does not support gay marriage. Even if Kerry/Edwards did support it, it is highly unlikely that the US would ever adopt such a law - I just don't think that it will happen, and probably won't happen during my lifetime. I've come to grips with it. The government won't recognise my marriage, but I can still love Jek. To me, we are married whether the government, my family, or anyone else says otherwise.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Kerry does support civil unions, which are marriages by a different name. His stated opposition to gay marriage as such is political posturing.

I'm shocked by your pessimism. States such as Vermont have already legislated civil unions, and Massachusetts has gay marriage and probably will retain it (I don't think much of the chances of the legislature AND the electorate amending one of the most progressive state constitutions in the U.S. against it). The federal Defense Of Marriage Act cannot sustain a challenge based on the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause requiring states to recognize each others' official acts. Gay marriage nationwide is probably just a matter of time, quite possibly within your lifetime. Your personal belief in your marriage to Jek is charming, but meaningless legally: you have no spousal benefits, no power of healthcare attorney, no inheritance rights.

A vote for Kerry is a vote in your self-interest, and you won't do it. It would be amazing if it weren't so common (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0716-08.htm).

[Roland98]

The Democratic candidate has already made it clear that he does not support gay marriage. Even if Kerry/Edwards did support it, it is highly unlikely that the US would ever adopt such a law - I just don't think that it will happen, and probably won't happen during my lifetime. I've come to grips with it. The government won't recognise my marriage, but I can still love Jek. To me, we are married whether the government, my family, or anyone else says otherwise.

You are correct in that Kerry/Edwards have said they don't support "gay marriage." However, please note that Kerry's home state of MA is one of the places in the US where gay marriages are legal. What Kerry and Edwards feel is that the issue is one that belongs to the states, not to the federal govt. (and Kerry was on of few senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage act). And from Kerry's site, (http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/lgbt/):

John Kerry and John Edwards will work to support civil unions, prevent hate crimes, end discrimination, increase HIV/AIDS funding, and will protect Gay and Lesbian families.

It's the word "marriage" which gets the fundies all up in arms (edit: and as Blake said above, it's political posturing for Kerry to avoid supporting "gay marriage," while being in favor of civil unions). I think recognizing civil unions, and allowing gay partners to have the rights married couples do as far as property, medical decisions, etc. is an excellent first step. I don't think it's enough, but I think it's a move in the right direction--and it's a far cry from Bush et. al's position of "gays are bad" and "gay unions are destroying our country." :doh:

[Roland98]

Y'know, one more question--have you ever read John Kerry's site and positions? I was one of those who didn't vote for him in the primaries, and was kind of apathetic about him in the beginning (but am very much against Bush, so I'd probably have voted for Jeffrey Dahmer before I voted for Shrub. Okay, maybe not, but it would have been a close call...) Anyway, the point of this is that after reading his plans and watching him in the debates, I've come to like a lot of his ideas and at this point am more for Kerry than simply "he's not Bush." I don't know if that would change anyone's mind or not, but becoming informed on the possible next leader of the U.S. should be worth an hour or so of your time, right?

[viscousmemories]

Arrrrrrgh!

I just found out you have to register to vote 30 days before an election in Texas. So, I won't be voting here. Hopefully I registered to vote in California when I got my drivers license (I have no recollection) and can vote absentee there. :(

[ApostateAbe]

Arrrrrrgh!

I just found out you have to register to vote 30 days before an election in Texas. So, I won't be voting here. Hopefully I registered to vote in California when I got my drivers license (I have no recollection) and can vote absentee there. :( Well, at least Kerry won't mind, because Texas is too strongly Bush. And California is strongly Kerry, so that won't matter either. Maybe you can just donate money to his campaign.

[Dingfod]

Better hurry, you only have until Tuesday, October 26th to get your application for an absentee ballot to them.

Here's an application. (http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm#application)

[The Lone Ranger]

Arguing that the system is broken and therefore voting is a waste of time is a great example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People like Bree and Gawen are a major reason that the system is broken, since a representative republic depends on an informed and actively voting populace to work correctly. Why should the politicians care what you think when voter apathy is so rampant? Not voting gives fringe elements like the religious right a much greater voice than they would otherwise have because they DO get out and vote, and politicians know this.

We have a winner!

Remember, Hitler was elected to power. Oh sure, the elections were widely regarded as rigged, but still . . . [Actually, come to think of it . . .]

No, I'm not saying Bush and company are comparable to Hitler. What I'm saying is that if good people throw up their hands and conclude that there's no point in voting, then they're practically handing the reins of power to the fanatics -- who most assuredly do vote.

And no offense, but if you think Kerry is no better than Bush, you need to read up on their platforms pronto! Kerry's by no means an ideal candidate, but at least he isn't a cryptofascist.

Cheers,

Michael

[Godless Dave]

Would you rather live in a country where someone besides the citizens decides who makes up the government? If so, why?

[Godless Dave]

A republican form of government doesn't work without the active participation of the citizenry. That's part of the reason the country isn't working very well.
Bingo. One million points to Blake.

[Bella]

In other words, if you don't care enough about the subject to take a few minutes out of your day to vote once a year, or even once every four years, it strikes me that you just don't take it all that seriously.
Correction: it's not that I'm too lazy to vote. I would vote even if the process took five hours, if I believed that the vote I cast actually affected the outcome of the presidential race and if I felt that any candidate running deserved my vote. Unfortunately I feel neither of these things. Also, it's not that I don't care enough about the subject. I've examined both sides equally and I can safely say I think both candidates are *thwerlkshtyb* and therefore I don't see a reason why I should vote simply to use up my ability to vote.

[Shake]

You could do it so that you could at least complain about the selection. IMO, if your custom title is really true, then you have forfeited your right to complain about any of our leaders, ever.

I'm not sure if you heard this yet, but you say "both candidates" as though there were only two. I can think of at least half a dozen candidates who are running for the Presidency this year. Your vote for one of the third party candidates would at least let the major candidates know that there's one more person who's not satisfied with either of the two choices who really stand a chance of winning.

Anyway, I know that perhaps no one can convince you to change your mind about this with regards to major national elections, but I would strongly urge you to at least go vote in your local elections. Your local officials have perhaps more impact on your day-to-day life, and since fewer people vote in local elections, your voice is that much stronger. I've seen where low level elections were decided with mere hundreds of votes cast.

Thinking back to my original comments as well as your statement about feeling that not "any candidate running deserved my vote," reminds me that your choices are even broader than what I mentioned before. You're neglecting the write-in option. There's a group here that's so fed up with our state government they're urging people to vote out ALL the incumbents, and also if you don't like the other candidates to write in the name of their group. They feel this will send a message to our state legislature. Meetings that they've had so far have had to seek larger venues because they've been getting more support than anticipated.

Finally, if you can't think of anyone to write in, PM me and I'll give you my real name, which you can write in. I promise you'll have a major voice in my administration, if elected. Seriously.

[D. Scarlatti]

This is exactly where I'm coming from. Same shit, different flavours.

Remember that when a re-elected President Bush is making his two or three Supreme Court appointments.

[Petra]

Correction: it's not that I'm too lazy to vote. I would vote even if the process took five hours, if I believed that the vote I cast actually affected the outcome of the presidential race and if I felt that any candidate running deserved my vote. Unfortunately I feel neither of these things. Also, it's not that I don't care enough about the subject. I've examined both sides equally and I can safely say I think both candidates are *thwerlkshtyb* and therefore I don't see a reason why I should vote simply to use up my ability to vote.

That'll be why your title thingy reads "not voting, in 04 or ever".


I've pleaded with you, others have given you great reasons to vote - some lengthy, some pithy. The two main candidates - Bush and Kerry are very different. Very, very different.

As Scarlatti said, remember that when Bush gets back in and makes fundie appointments to the Supreme Court.

And if you can't even vote when there are people literally dying violently in buckets of blood, and hell is just around the corner, and this election is so very important in so many ways, then fuck you and every other whining, non-voting, vacuous cunt out there. Democracy is wasted on you. Fucking passengers. :fuming:

[Godless Dave]

It sounds to me like you have unrealistic expectations. A presidential election is basically a hiring decision made by a committee of over 100 million people. Of course no one candidate can please half the people on everything, or even on most things.

I understand why Kerry isn't all things to all liberals, but his positions are quite a bit different than Bush's. Plus he's got those extra 50 IQ points.

And that's just the presidential election. Your vote counts a lot more in local and state races, and those politicians have more of an impact on you. Local school board races are where fundies sneak creationists and other wingnuts onto the school boards.

A lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that we elect leaders. We don't. We elect employees. Leaders only come along once in a generation or so. Paul Wellstone was probably it for the foreseeable future.

[Godless Dave]

Something else to think about, Bree: you are the right age to get drafted.

We are running out of troops in Iraq. A second Bush term is likely to mean more wars. Ready to vote yet?

[lisarea]

Correction: it's not that I'm too lazy to vote. I would vote even if the process took five hours, if I believed that the vote I cast actually affected the outcome of the presidential race and if I felt that any candidate running deserved my vote. Unfortunately I feel neither of these things. Also, it's not that I don't care enough about the subject. I've examined both sides equally and I can safely say I think both candidates are *thwerlkshtyb* and therefore I don't see a reason why I should vote simply to use up my ability to vote.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you're lazy, and I apologize if you interpreted it as such. I see it more as apathy, and I think it's different. Maybe frustration, too. And I understand.

I can virtually guarantee that I will never have the opportunity to elect someone who accurately represents even a good-sized chunk of my personal political beliefs. It's not going to happen, particularly not for national office. I'm traditionally a third-party voter. I voted Nader last time, and the time before that. This time, I'm voting Kerry for a couple of major reasons: One, Colorado is not the solid red it was last time around, so it behooves me to vote more pragmatically, in the better interests of the country, than it does for me to lodge a protest. Two, I've decided that I need to play within the rules. The rules, like them or not, are that we narrow down the field of candidates before the general election. We make compromises in order to work within our current electoral system most effectively. Those compromises involve my supporting the major candidate who is not even closest to, but LESS FAR from what I believe is better for the country.

Not just better for me, not just closer to my personal interests, mind you: Better for the country.

I am not gay. Nobody is preventing me from getting married. That doesn't mean I don't care. Just because it doesn't affect me directly doesn't mean I don't care what happens. I do. Now, there is no candidate who will immediately support gay marriage, or will, with the swoop of a pen, somehow legitimize it in all 50 states. There is, however, one candidate who does not support a constitutional amendment that will take those rights away. There is one candidate who supports some measure of legal protections, at least.

We are at war. I am a 40 year old woman. I am not at risk of being drafted. In the interests of full disclosure, my son just turned 18, so he is, but even if that were not the case, I still would be interested in getting us out of this situation as cleanly and as peacefully as possible. Even if I didn't know one single person who were directly at risk of being sent into this morass, I would still care. I don't want anyone to have to die anymore. Not Americans. Not Iraqis. Not anyone. That's not reasonable, though. We're not done. It's started, and if we don't finish it effectively, it's going to come back. There are two candidates running for president this year: One who got us into this mess in the first place, and who seems to have no real plan or even interest in getting us out; and another who is intimately familiar with the brutal realities of war, who has both the interest and IMO the ability to get us out of there as neatly as possible. I'm not sure I entirely support the idea of just pulling out suddenly, but even if I did, there is no viable candidate who is going to do that for us. One of two men is going to be the next president. I am going to vote for the one who has the plan that I think is best for the country.

I do know personally what a mess our healthcare system is. I have bitter experience, both directly and through people I'm close to, with the damage that reliance on private, employer-funded healthcare can do. I know what type of injustice insurer-friendly tort reform creates. There are two viable candidates for president. Both support tort reform to varying degrees. One is an attorney whose VP is a personal injury lawyer. The other is a stupid, corporation-funded fratboy who bases his policies on one of the most absurd, flawed, childishly biased reports I've ever seen, period, and cites the unsupported statistics therein as justification to put caps on award claims for private citizens who've been injured. One candidate endorses providing healthcare for Americans that's not tied to employer. The other claims that everything's just fine the way it is, mischaracterizing his opponent's plan as government-run healthcare, which it is not. I don't know that either candidate will make the kind of changes that need to be changed, but I do know that one of the candidates isn't even going to bother to try.

There are two realistic choices for president: One consistently falls on the side of corporate interests in matters of trade, commerce, consumer protection, and other government policy. The other does so to a much lesser degree. One ignores the science that tells us that the planet is withering due to our thoughtless consumption of fossil fuels, and the other recognizes and understands that science, and endorses policies that will lessen our dependence on those fuels and decrease the pollution that's destroying the planet. One endorses privatizing and annihilating our common properties in the pursuit of profits for corporate interests, allowing little to no public oversight into clearcutting our national forests and building logging roads for commercial interests. The other has the highest lifetime rating on environmental issues of any presidential candidate--92 out of 100 in his 20 year voting record--according to the League of Conservation Voters, and is often referred to as one of the leading voices for environmental interests in Washington.

There are differences. Huge differences. It's still a compromise, of course, but I recognize that those compromises are necessary if our flawed system is to best represent the interests of the American people.

Neither candidate accurately reflects my own personal beliefs and interests, but I am just one person. I don't have any greater claim to American policy than any other citizen. My role is tiny. I'm just one of a giant voting bloc of Americans who have decided that they prefer one of the major candidates over another. I have no special voice, and I have no right to demand one. Sure, I can do my best to discuss the issues and try to influence others to vote in a way that I consider best, but I have no more right to demand that my individual vote count any more than anyone else's. And I don't expect for that individual vote to be a deciding factor in anything. I'm just one of many many people who will be voting on election day. There is no compelling individual argument for my vote. My vote is a drop in the ocean, and it only makes a difference as a tiny part of a giant whole.

But I can't imagine a democratic system, flawed or not, that worked any other way.

[LadyShea]

Bree, now you're just sounding obstinate. Go to the polls, write in someone or skip the President on your ballot, and vote on the other offices and issues where you can make a difference.

My parents wrote in Lee Iacocca, in protest, for years.

[Beth]

Not sure, but can you do a write-in ballot with the electronic touch screen system?

[Godless Dave]

Not sure, but can you do a write-in ballot with the electronic touch screen system?
If it isn't, your county is required to provide you a way of writing in a candidate. That doesn't mean that such a system is in place, or even if there is that the pollworkers are aware of it an trained accordingly.

[Godless Dave]

Lisarea, that was a beautiful summation of the differences between the two major party candidates for president.

[LadyShea]

Not sure, but can you do a write-in ballot with the electronic touch screen system?


As Dave said, they are required to provide you the means to write in your own candidate. I don't know how it's done, but it is part of our right to vote.

[viscousmemories]

Better hurry, you only have until Tuesday, October 26th to get your application for an absentee ballot to them.

Here's an application. (http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm#application)
Thanks Warren, I had already found, filled out and mailed that when I posted. I still don't have any way of knowing if I'm registered in CA 'cause I can't remember if I did it when I got my DL, but if they let me vote I will.

[Bella]

And if you can't even vote when there are people literally dying violently in buckets of blood, and hell is just around the corner, and this election is so very important in so many ways, then fuck you and every other whining, non-voting, vacuous cunt out there. Democracy is wasted on you. Fucking passengers. :fuming:
Is this another bleeding heart liberal attempt to guilt me into voting? Calling me a 'cunt' isn't going to make me vote, but I sure hope it made you feel better.
Bree, now you're just sounding obstinate. Go to the polls, write in someone or skip the President on your ballot, and vote on the other offices and issues where you can make a difference.
I apologise for the confusion: I did take your earlier advice to heart and decided to go to the polls to vote in the local and state elections for candidates that I think should fill the open seats, as I do believe my vote counts in these smaller scale races. I also spoke to my abstaining friend at work and she is going to participate as well, but again is adament she will vote only for those people she believes will actually do a good job in the position they're running for.

I think I need to change my user title and my button; people are getting confused and hostile.

[Socratoad]

Bree, reading most of your posts including the OP One could easily get the impression that the only philosophy you have is "whats in it for me". I know I did. Then luckily for me I stumbled upon your journal and your ambitions, hopes and dreams regarding your coming career as a chef, and then I said to myself this is a damned fine young woman. And so Bree your announcement that you have changed your mind regarding voting leaves this old Toad very happy.

Think of it as voting for both of us, for although I do not live in your country the results of this election is of profound importance to me and hundreds of millions of other people all around the globe. :wave:

[LadyShea]

I apologise for the confusion: I did take your earlier advice to heart and decided to go to the polls to vote in the local and state elections for candidates that I think should fill the open seats, as I do believe my vote counts in these smaller scale races. I also spoke to my abstaining friend at work and she is going to participate as well, but again is adament she will vote only for those people she believes will actually do a good job in the position they're running for.

Good, thats an excellent compromise. I do wish you would vote simply to get rid of Bush, but it's your right to write in someone else or choose a third party or simply skip it.

[wildernesse]

And if you can't even vote when there are people literally dying violently in buckets of blood, and hell is just around the corner, and this election is so very important in so many ways, then fuck you and every other whining, non-voting, vacuous cunt out there. Democracy is wasted on you. Fucking passengers. :fuming:
Is this another bleeding heart liberal attempt to guilt me into voting?

No, I think it is an appeal for you to face the realities out there--that people are dying because one of the candidates threw them into a war whose foundations are as solid as a house of cards. A candidate who lied to us and sent our soldiers off unprepared. That candidate needs to be punished.

Over a thousand of our soldiers have died--died for a mistake, a lie! Tens of thousands of civilians have died. There is no end in sight, and it can only get worse if we keep on keeping on with the candidate we have. We're paying for that death and destruction, too, and money doesn't grow on trees.

I don't think that the other candidate will automatically end all the bloodshed, but the one in the office now certainly doesn't have a good record. Why give him any support? And giving Bush support is really what you are doing if you aren't working at kicking him to the curb. Perhaps you should feel guilty--if you care about these issues and still do nothing, I don't see why guilt would be all that out of place.

[wildernesse]

An article I stumbled onto as the next thing I read after posting:

Even those of us working hard for change hit walls of doubt and uncertainty about whether our actions really matter. Our spirits rise and fall as if on a roller coaster with each shift in the polls. In a time when lies too often seem to prevail, we wonder whether it's worthwhile to keep making the effort. We need to remind ourselves that we never can predict all the results of our actions. A few years ago, I met a Wesleyan University student who, with a few friends, registered nearly three hundred fellow students concerned about environmental threats and cuts in government financial aid programs. The Congressman they supported won by 21 votes. Before they began, the student and her friends feared that their modest efforts would be irrelevant. Even when our actions seem futile, we never really know their full influence.

. . . .

We need the courage to persist between now and the November election—and beyond. Too many people hold back from volunteering or even voting, because they feel politics is out of their control. We need to remind ourselves—and others—that history isn't some inevitable pendulum. It's contingent on the hope that enables us to act.


TomPaine.com (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/hope_for_the_homestretch.php)

[Lauri D]

I am going to toss my .02 onto the table here...

This has been said in various ways by other posters already (and more eloquently, I'm sure). But here's the thing; generally speaking, I have understood why some people choose to abstain from voting on principle and it hasn't been as much of a bother to me really as it is this year (caveat - people who are actually aware of the issues at stake as opposed to the truly apathetic, into which category you do not seem to fall, Bree.)

But - and I realize that I have probably not lived long enough as an adult to say this without sounding like I'm unaware of what has gone before - I truly feel that this time, for this election, the ante has been upped like it ain't never been upped before. Meaning, it's not just a matter of "something wicked this way comes", but something wicked has already come, and been in charge for the past four years and is going to have the ability to fuck us and much of the world over but good if we don't take the opportunity to send him and his administration back to their dungeons.

IN THIS ELECTION, I don't see it as a matter of "the lesser of two evils", but the difference between pure unadulterated evil that could potentially screw the world up for generations to come - and garden variety politically-corrupt type "evil". To me, the choice is clear.

I've always voted for third party candidates in the past with only one exception, but this year - with the stakes as high as they are, not just for the well-being of those of us US citizens but people the world over - I cannot help but feel that to have the opportunity to help oust an administration that is like a cancer, and not take it, is a grave error in judgment.

*.02 have been tossed*

[Dingfod]

I'm reduced to begging. Please vote Bree. Please. Please. Please. It does matter. Really.

[Petra]

[QUOTE=Bree]
Is this another bleeding heart liberal attempt to guilt me into voting? Calling me a 'cunt' isn't going to make me vote, but I sure hope it made you feel better.

No, it's how I really feel. No, it doesn't make me feel any better.

Yes, I really think you are a pampered, selfish, solipsistic cunt.

Sorry you think that caring about the violent deaths of around 15,000 people so far in a brutal and unjustifiable war is being a "bleeding heart liberal".

Sorry you think that caring about the fucking planet and things like nuclear proliferation, rising terrorism, and rising fundamentalism is being a "bleeding heart liberal".

Don't vote, Bree. You too stupid to have a voice. Too whiny and self-absorbed. Besides you might break a fingernail or something. You'll have to actually think and act and be a citizen of the world, instead of just another dumbass consumer, concerned more about whether their teeth are white and dazzling enough to make you feel like a star.

Oh, and if my language and tone offend your delicate sensitivities, too bad. Nothing is more crude or savage than Operation Iraqi Liberation, and the smell of dead and burning flesh. :fuming:

[ApostateAbe]

lunachick, please, chill out. This is a freethought forum where unpopular ideas ought to be welcomed and looked at with a critical, reasonable, and open-minded attitude.

[ApostateAbe]

Bree, instead of continuing the cycle of flame, please respond to the more peaceful points made on this thread, and this thread will be much happier and educational place.

[Petra]

lunachick, please, chill out. This is a freethought forum where unpopular ideas ought to be welcomed and looked at with a critical, reasonable, and open-minded attitude.

:madrant:

[Dingfod]

lunachick, please, chill out. This is a freethought forum where unpopular ideas ought to be welcomed and looked at with a critical, reasonable, and open-minded attitude.lunachick is entitled to her opinion even if a bit repugnant. You've certainly been able to air yours here.

[Godless Dave]

And giving Bush support is really what you are doing if you aren't working at kicking him to the curb. Perhaps you should feel guilty--if you care about these issues and still do nothing, I don't see why guilt would be all that out of place.
What she said.

Sorry you think that caring about the violent deaths of around 15,000 people so far in a brutal and unjustifiable war is being a "bleeding heart liberal".

Sorry you think that caring about the fucking planet and things like nuclear proliferation, rising terrorism, and rising fundamentalism is being a "bleeding heart liberal".
And what she said.

Bree, I don't know if you're going to vote in Wisconsin or Minnesota, but both states are going to be very close. Your one vote does count. Remember, Bush only "won" Florida by 537 votes*.

*After tens of thousands of people were illegally barred from voting, and after Katharine Harris decided not to count all the ballots.

[LadyXoc]

A good argument for voting in the Presidential election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html

You'll need a password to enter.

Username - ladyxoc
password - xocxoc

[livius drusus]

At any rate, I think the question of why some people are mean to proud non-voters has been answered: what's business as usual to the latter is global life or death to the former.

[D. Scarlatti]

Wisconsin? How can you not vote in Wisconsin, of all places? I don't see how any individual principle can override the principle of ousting these arrogant motherfuckers, especially in this hugely important state.

I can understand a liberal believing their vote means nothing in Texas, but not in Ohio, Florida, or Wisconsin.

Check out the article in last Sunday's NYT magazine about Bush's "faith based" presidency, and how his inner circle is becoming more and more constricted and insular because he will broach absolutely no dissent or even pointed questioning, such is his borderline messianic belief in his "divine" mission.

The only way to get rid of this delusional asshole is to vote him out.

[D. Scarlatti]

Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.

These are lifetime appointments. If you can do something about preventing them, why wouldn't you?

[Socratoad]

Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.

These are lifetime appointments. If you can do something about preventing them, why wouldn't you?

I more lucid reason for voting I've never seen :bow:

[LadyXoc]

Here's another one.

http://www.tomatonation.com/vote.shtml

Do not give me that "what's the point" crap, because "the point," in case you've missed it, is that George W. Bush is an execrable president. He has embroiled us in a war under false pretenses. He has utterly disregarded -- in fact, is actively hostile to -- the environment. He has damaged our standing in the international community, possibly irreparably. He has announced his intention to codify discrimination against gays and lesbians with a constitutional amendment. He is an enemy of choice, diplomacy, civil rights, the Bill of Rights, the working poor, the scientific community, trees, women, your safety, and the English language. He hates reading, inexpensive medicines from Canada, and a bunch of my friends. He is an outrage, he is an embarrassment, and if I have anything to say about it, he is returning to brush-clearing on his ranch full-time come November 3.

And I do have something to say about it, actually. I have a vote, and I will use it, and you should use yours. Not American? Nag your American friends to vote. Not eighteen yet? Make sure your parents get to the polls. Don't have a ride? Email me. It's not the cleanest car in Brooklyn but it'll get you there. (…Probably. Heh.)

Voting isn't just about exercising the right to do so, or about "winning." It's about not losing hope. It's about having faith -- in the system, in your fellow citizens, in yourself. It's about thinking that things can and will get better, that each of us plays a part in that happening, that each of us matters.

So, the second thing: don't lose hope. Bush might win. Hell, he didn't win last time and we still got stuck with him. I find the prospect of another four years of that pig-eyed jackass and his cabal of amoral bigots so profoundly frightening and depressing that I almost want to move to Canada if it comes to that.

[D. Scarlatti]

I agree, Socratoad. I think the president's greatest power is his authority to appoint federal judges. There are a lot of opportunistic Federalist Society conservatives out there, many of whom are relatively young. Judge Leon Holmes there for example is only 53 years old. That gives him another 30 years or so to wreak havoc on federal law, including a potential shot at the United States Supreme Court. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Diane Sykes, who was recently appointed by Bush to the 7th Circuit, is only 46.

The last thing we need is another four years of this crap.

[Godless Dave]

Just in case there's anyone who still thinks Republicans and Democrats hold mostly the same views:


Republican candidates pledging to ban gay marriage, group says (http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5039517.html)
Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage announced Monday that 110 Republicans and only three DFLers have signed its brand-new pledge to support a proposal to constitutionally ban gay marriage or its legal equivalent.

[Bella]

I'm really surprised that, here of all places I've been called a 'cunt' for having an unpopular opinion.

[Godless Dave]

Only one person called you a "cunt". Do you at least understand why your opinion is unpopular? So far you haven't responded to any of the many reasons given why we think you should vote.

And can you please answer my question from post 51?

[Bella]

Do you at least understand why your opinion is unpopular?
Yes, I most certainly do understand. I never thought that people wouldn't have some strong feeling on the subject. What I had thought (perhaps mistakenly) is that people would understand that, as strongly as they feel I should vote for Kerry, I feel equally as strongly against wasting my vote on a candidate(s) which I don't support.
So far you haven't responded to any of the many reasons given why we think you should vote.
I would vote even if the process took five hours, if I believed that the vote I cast actually affected the outcome of the presidential race and if I felt that any candidate running deserved my vote. Unfortunately I feel neither of these things. Also, it's not that I don't care enough about the subject. I've examined both sides equally and I can safely say I think both candidates are *thwerlkshtyb* and therefore I don't see a reason why I should vote simply to use up my ability to vote.
Let me explain...wait, no time. Let me sum up.

I've taken a good look at both candidates: their platform, their political past, et cetera. There are certainly pros and cons for each. Kerry is a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the balls to make a firm stance on an issue, for fear that he might lose votes. As much as I dislike Bush, at least he stands up for what he believes in (give him double-points, actually, because he is unwavering even though it makes him look like a moron ;) ). If I were to include the entire pro/con list this would be a long post, indeed.

Someone brought up the possibility of voting for a third party candidate - it is likely that a vote for one of them could turn into an electoral vote for Bush. An indirect vote for any candidate other than the one I've chosen automatically negates the reason for voting for the third party candidate in the first place.

I do not feel I am not 'wasting' my vote. I have made an educated, personal decision to withhold my vote because I don't feel any candidate deserves it. Now, a lot of people seem to think that a vote for anybody but Bush isn't a wasted vote. I was under the impression that you were supposed to cast your ballot for the person you actually think should hold the position, not cast your vote for whomever just so the unwanted party loses. I think that if I vote for Kerry or Mickey Mouse or whomever, it would be a waste of a vote, because my personal feelings would not support that decision.

I was very excited to participate in the last presidential election. The debacle that ensued afterwards made me realise just how much my vote didn't count. The popular vote can be counted completely, partially, not at all, or selectively. The electoral college can make a decision that does not reflect the popular vote. While I had learnt all this in school, I never fully understood how it all worked, much less how it could work against the citizens. When 2004 rolled around I decided that even if my vote didn't really count towards the actual election of the president, I could choose according to my personal political stances on the issues and be satisfied that I cast my vote according to how I felt about things. This is where I still stand.
And can you please answer my question from post 51?
I most certainly can, however I reserve to right to a disclaimer: obviously a draft, if reinstated, would affect more than myself. However, Godless Dave asked if I was ready to be drafted, so my answer will reflect that question.

I will never be drafted. I am an openly homosexual female with a medical condition that would definately exclude me from ever being drafted into the military.

[Godless Dave]

I was under the impression that you were supposed to cast your ballot for the person you actually think should hold the position, not cast your vote for whomever just so the unwanted party loses.Wrong. You are supposed to vote for the candidate, out of the choices you have, who you think will do the best for the country once in office. This often, I'd say usually, means choosing the lesser of two evils. If I only voted for candidates who I thought should hold the position they are running for I would hardly ever vote. But that's not how it works. Like I said earlier, an election is a hiring decision made by a gigantic committee.

I understand your criticisms of Kerry, although I don't think they're entirely accurate. But the question is, would he be better for the US than Bush? The answer is obvious. A trained monkey would be better for the US than Bush. Kerry has his faults, but he's a lot better than a trained monkey.

I was really disappointed that Howard Dean didn't get the Democratic nomination. I would much rather vote for Howard Dean or Wesley Clark than John Kerry. But they aren't running, and Kerry is.

[viscousmemories]

I do not feel I am not 'wasting' my vote. I have made an educated, personal decision to withhold my vote because I don't feel any candidate deserves it.
Did you mean to say you do not feel you are 'wasting' your vote?

In any case, I think your reasoning is flawed. If it were possible that not voting for either candidate might result in neither of them winning, it would make sense to me. But since one of them is almost positively going to win, the only way you can justify not voting is if you don't care which one it is. That would be reasonable if they were really the "same shit, different flavors", but it seems to me there have been a ton of significant differences pointed out in this thread.

[ApostateAbe]

Bree, at least I sympathize with you. If you are sure that you want to skip the vote in the presidential elections, then do so by all means. To tell you the truth, I would have a hard time voting for the lesser of two evils if he opposed one of my basic rights.

I don't know if you read what I said early on, but I implied that voting is more of a selfish thing rather than a social obligation. If you don't vote, then your opinions don't matter to politicians who aim to get votes. As a result, you may lose your rights. All the groups of people you identify with lose political power after you don't vote. Kerry may not support homosexual marriages, but since he knows that so many gays vote, he takes a more central stance on it. If it weren't for many people standing in support of gay marriages, then both candidates would advocate the constitutional amendment Bush proposed. It isn't depressing--that is how a democray works.

I suggest voting for Michael Badnarik. He is the libertarian candidate. He supports gay marriage outright and opposes the Iraq war out-and-out. In fact, I think a lot of third parties have the same views. There is one third party candidate with the same views whose running mate is a lesbian--Worker's World, I think.

[Lauri D]

I heard (read) someone else say this - not sure who, a regular person or in a column or something - so I'm paraphrasing, but in short:

You can make the choice to use the power of your vote not just FOR someone, but AGAINST someone.

AFAIC it's just as legitimate a use of your vote. Further, in a situation like the one we are facing now, I can't help but feel that there is no reasonable justification for not using it in this way (as a vote AGAINST as opposed to FOR.) If...

A) one admittedly knows the dangers/pitfalls/evils we face if Bush is re-elected and yet

B) does not use whatever power they have (their vote) to help ensure it doesn't happen -

... and Bush is re-elected....

...it's going to be damn hard for me not to feel that those who COULD HAVE HELPED get rid of him and didn't, have done themselves and the rest of the world wrong.

[wei yau]

I'm also a disappointed Dean supporter. But, I'll deal with it.

I used to be a bad citizen. I did not vote. And not because of any high-minded principle of trying to find the ideal candidate. I did not vote simply out of apathy.

Well, now I'm awake. And I want everyone else to open their eyes, as well.

Now that I'm more politically active and aware, I've come to realize that politics are not about ideals. As much as we'd like them to be, as much as we'd prefer reasoned discussions as opposed to talking points, it's just not that way.

My ideal candidate is not running. Therefore, I have to compromise. I have to identify those things that are important to me and find which candidate best supports those things. If it means holding my nose as I vote, then so be it.

I make compromises everyday...in nearly every aspect of my life. It's the natural consequence of living as part of a larger society. If I'm willing to compromise on less important things, then I don't see how can I reasonably refuse to compromise on more important things. Compromising often gets a bad rap. As if it's better to be foolishly obstinante. But compromise is what our democracy, even all of society, is based on.

So, I recognize that my ideal candidate is not running. I recognize that I have to accept the chosen candidate and give him my support. If I do not and the other candidate wins, then I get the satisfaction of watching everything that I believe get torn down simply because I could not get off of my high horse and cast a vote.

What's the point of being "right" and "sticking to your ideals", if the world around you changes into something you loathe?

[Goliath]

I'm really surprised that, here of all places I've been called a 'cunt' for having an unpopular opinion.

I don't think you're being called a cunt for having an unpopular opinion. I think you're being called a cunt because you're helping Bush to win. And if he wins, then IMO you are partially responsible for the damage he would do to this country in his second term.

Do you want to be a part of the problem, or a part of the solution to said problem?

[Bella]

I think you're being called a cunt because you're helping Bush to win.
Then I'm being called a 'cunt' for supposedly being partially responsible for an unpopular outcome. That still surprises me. It appears that we freethinkers can be just as fundamentalist as our religious counterparts.
Did you mean to say you do not feel you are 'wasting' your vote?
Dammit, yes. That is what I meant.
But since one of them is almost positively going to win, the only way you can justify not voting is if you don't care which one it is.
Thank you, vm; that is the most compelling argument I've heard thus far.

[Godless Dave]

But since one of them is almost positively going to win, the only way you can justify not voting is if you don't care which one it is.Thank you, vm; that is thus far the most compelling argument I've heard this far.Did you really need it pointed out? I mean, isn't it obvious?

That's one of the two main reasons people have been so hostile to you. We just assumed that you didn't care if Bush won.

The other main reason is that for all its many flaws and potential for injustice and inefficiency, representative democracy is the most fair and just government system yet developed.

[ApostateAbe]

Bree, why don't you vote for a third party? At least then, president Kerry will see that your vote is up for grabs in 2008.

[LadyXoc]

As much as I dislike Bush, at least he stands up for what he believes in

So did Torquemada. Yay. Is it really possible you can't see what this pack of idiots is doing to this country? I won't even bring up the freaking mess in Iraq.

[Bella]

But since one of them is almost positively going to win, the only way you can justify not voting is if you don't care which one it is.Thank you, vm; that is thus far the most compelling argument I've heard this far.
Did you really need it pointed out? I mean, isn't it obvious?
Of course not, but as was noted earlier I haven't been exactly forthcoming with the responses to the arguments presented me, and I saw the opportunity to comment.

For some reason I can't seem to shake the feeling that this is boiling down to what I feel is personally right versus what other people think I should do regardless whether or not I feel it's personally right.
Is it really possible you can't see what this pack of idiots is doing to this country?
I understand very well what Bush has 'done' to this country (it was going that way anyway - he just helped). I feel that I can have respect for a person sticking to their beliefs unwaveringly even though I don't necessarily respect the beliefs they're sticking up for - I hope that's a little clearer.

[Goliath]

Then I'm being called a 'cunt' for supposedly being partially responsible for an unpopular outcome.

Actually, if it were an unpopular outcome, then it would be clear that Kerry will win the election. Since that outcome seems far from clear, however....


That still surprises me. It appears that we freethinkers can be just as fundamentalist as our religious counterparts.

That's not only ridiculous, but extremely insulting. Do you actually not see the damage that Bush has done to this country? The international reputation of the US is down the toilet. Our national defecit has never been higher. Health care costs are going up. Number and quality of jobs are going to crap. And we're caught in a god damn quagmire that has already claimed over 1,000 American lives, along with untold thousands of innocent Iraqis.

I have facts on my side. Fundies usually don't. That's the difference.

I'll ask you again: Do you want to be a part of the problem, or do you want to be a part of the solution to said problem?

[Godless Dave]

I just don't understand how not voting could ever feel personally right, especially this year.

John Kerry: not as pro-gay rights as you or I would like

George Bush: explicitly anti-gay rights.

John Kerry: now realizes Iraq war was a mistake, and post-invasion planning a disaster. Has vague idea how to make it better.

George Bush: still doesn't realize Iraq war was a mistake or that post-invasion planning was, and continues to be, horribly flawed.

What feels "right" about not choosing between those two?

[Goliath]

Let's not forget..

John Kerry: Is a xian, but does not wish to inflict his faith upon anyone else in any way, shape, or form.

George Bush: Has done more damage to the Wall of Separation than any president, and has a father who believes that atheists should not be US citizens.

[Godless Dave]

I understand very well what Bush has 'done' to this country (it was going that way anyway - he just helped).

Um, no. Gore was still a corporate stooge but he was not anti-gay or anti-abortion rights like Bush, and he sure as hell wouldn't have set our environmental regulations back 20 years.

I feel that I can have respect for a person sticking to their beliefs unwaveringly even though I don't necessarily respect the beliefs they're sticking up for - I hope that's a little clearer.
Whereas I have no respect for that at all.

[Goliath]

So Bree, you respect people for holding unwaveringly to their beliefs?

Do you respect the 9/11 hijackers? After all, they were as firm in their belief as any xian is to theirs.

[Bella]

<sigh>

What I was trying to say was this: In my previous experience most freethinkers, either here or on IIDB, have been at least reasonable when presented with an unpopular opinion (for the purposes of this discussion, the idea that my unspent vote will mean Bush may gain a second term in office). The only reason for my apparently ill-worded comparison to fundamentalists is because of the shit that's getting flung about simply because I have a different belief or opinion than the majority, and the majority thinks I'm wrong (some think morally wrong) for holding it.

I'm not saying you don't have facts to back you up, I'm not saying your delusional (the usual word that comes to my mind when faced with religious fundys). I'm just expressing surprise at some of the reactions.

[LadyXoc]

Two words. Abu Ghraib.

[lisarea]

Bree, you seem to be asking why people take this so personally. I understand why you're focusing on someone calling you a 'cunt,' but most people have not done so. It angries up the blood, to be sure, but as a criticism, it's not really substantive, so in itself really doesn't deserve such a share of your attention.

I would think that the reason people are mean to you, or at least what makes me angry about your attitude is what I perceive as arrogance. Refusing to vote, for president or other office, strikes me as petulant and uncooperative. I know as well as anyone that the system is unfair. I know how the EC works. But your 'pride' claims seem to imply that those who are willing to compromise and participate in the system as it exists today are somehow selling out, are less principled or ethical, than those who opt out entirely.

And I think that attitude is, well, adolescent. Adolescence is not a bad thing, IMO. I love it. I love youthful idealism, and I pity and mistrust those who don't keep a little of that, regardless of their age.

But at some point, I think most people realize that you have to temper that idealism with pragmatism. You're not going to change the world by refusing to participate in it. Right or wrong, if you reject societal convention entirely, you end up marginalized, and lose your ability to do anything about it.

Simply, you are not going to get your way, and you shouldn't. That's a fundamental principle of democracy. Those of us who choose to compromise aren't necessarily compromising our principles. I see my compromise as a negotiation. A bargaining process. Kerry was not my first choice for the Democratic candidate. In fact, he was my second-to-last. Hell, the Democrats were not even my favorite party. But I recognize that I am not the only person making the decision. I recognize that I can't hold out for a candidate that represents me personally, because I recognize that my opinion and my positions are not universal. I recognize that regardless of how strong my opinions are, they're still just opinions, and if I am to participate in a democratic process, I must participate in the negotiations, and I must accept compromises.

And I still don't understand how you think the system should work. Is your problem with the Electoral College? Would you vote if that were eliminated and we went to a popular vote? (And how do you hope to make that happen if you don't participate in national politics?) Is it with the quality of the candidates? Would you vote if there were another system for selecting president, like Instant Runoff Voting?

In other words, what changes would have to be made to convince you to vote in a national election?

[Bella]

So Bree, you respect people for holding unwaveringly to their beliefs?

Do you respect the 9/11 hijackers? After all, they were as firm in their belief as any xian is to theirs.
Yes, I respect them. Anyone who is willing to die for their beliefs - especially for such silly reasons as religion - deserves at least a round of applause.

I hope to God that participants in this thread can at least see the difference between respect for the ability to believe blindly and respect for the reprehensible acts that are the outcome of those beliefs. It is two vastly different things.
But your 'pride' claims seem to imply that those who are willing to compromise and participate in the system as it exists today are somehow selling out, are less principled or ethical, than those who opt out entirely.
No, and I'm sorry if that's the way I've come across. I don't care what persons A, B, or C do. If they want to compromise, that's fine. I personally don't feel right about compromising.
In other words, what changes would have to be made to convince you to vote in a national election?
Having a viable candidate that I believe should hold office.

[Goliath]

<sigh>

What I was trying to say was this: In my previous experience most freethinkers, either here or on IIDB, have been at least reasonable when presented with an unpopular opinion (for the purposes of this discussion, the idea that my unspent vote will mean Bush may gain a second term in office).


Your not voting against Bush will make it that much easier for him to get a second term. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.



The only reason for my apparently ill-worded comparison to fundamentalists is because of the shit that's getting flung about simply because I have a different belief or opinion than the majority, and the majority thinks I'm wrong (some think morally wrong) for holding it.



Bush has damaged our country--maybe irreparably so. And your not voting against him will increase--ever so slightly--the probability that he will have four more years to rape this country. And guess what? If that happens, then you are partially responsible for the damage done in his second term.

And "ill-worded" is a major understatement. That's like saying that Tony Soprano swears "occasionally."


I'm not saying you don't have facts to back you up, I'm not saying your delusional (the usual word that comes to my mind when faced with religious fundys). I'm just expressing surprise at some of the reactions.

Well, what kind of reaction did you expect from us, exactly?

[Goliath]

Yes, I respect them. Anyone who is willing to die for their beliefs - especially for such silly reasons as religion - deserves at least a round of applause.

:rubeyes: Now, it's my turn to be surprised.

So, if Osama Bin Laden were running for President, would you consider him to be at least as good of a choice as John Kerry?

What about Fred Phelps?

[Bella]

So, if Osama Bin Laden were running for President, would you consider him to be at least as good of a choice as John Kerry?

What about Fred Phelps?
As I said earlier, just because I respect the strength of belief doesn't mean I respect what a person does as a result of their strength of belief. I thought it was obvious that, while I can have respect for the strength of belief the 9/11 hijackers had, I cannot, do not, and never have had respect for the destruction of the WTC.

Furthermore, whether or not I respect a person is by no means entirely dependant upon strength of belief. Many different factors come into play. I'm just saying that strong belief in something - especially if it's unfounded in truth - is worth some kind of respect. Even if it's only one iota, or a golf clap.

[Goliath]

As I said earlier, just because I respect the strength of belief doesn't mean I respect what a person does as a result of their strength of belief. I thought it was obvious that, while I can have respect for the strength of belief the 9/11 hijackers had, I cannot, do not, and never have had respect for the destruction of the WTC.

Okay...let's try that again, but this time, give a straightforward answer to the questions, mmmkay?

[wei yau]

Having a viable candidate that I believe should hold office.

And given your reluctance to compromise (or negotiate, or bargain), what are the chances you'll ever find such a candidate?

Seems to me that the only viable candidate that would meet your criteria would be yourself.

[Godless Dave]

I'm just saying that strong belief in something - especially if it's unfounded in truth - is worth some kind of respect.
Why? I have nothing but contempt for people who believe strongly in anything unfounded in truth. And when someone in a position of power holds a strong belief in something unfounded in truth - like, say, that invading Iraq would deter international terrorism by others - very bad things happen.

[Goliath]

I understand why Kerry isn't all things to all liberals, but his positions are quite a bit different than Bush's. Plus he's got those extra 50 IQ points.


I think that may be a bit of an underestimation. :D

I just wish I lived in a state where my vote for the presidential election individually mattered (unlike someone in this thead who shall remain named Bree). SD is definitely Bush country...the last Democrat that got SD's electoral votes was Jimmy Carter.

However, my vote for the presidential race will let the State government know that not everyone here is a stodgy conservative prick.

Also, my vote most definitely will matter in the SD Senatorial race, which looks like a close one (although Daschle appears to have a slight lead on the prick Thune, according to recent polls).

[livius drusus]

What I was trying to say was this: In my previous experience most freethinkers, either here or on IIDB, have been at least reasonable when presented with an unpopular opinion....

/me chuckles
You moderated GRD for a year, woman; you know that ain't even remotely true. PD is another fine example of how people hold beliefs of all kinds with varying degrees of certitude. Atheist or not, self-styled freethinker or not, some topics arouse passions in some people and that's just the way the human cookie crumbles.

The only reason for my apparently ill-worded comparison to fundamentalists is because of the shit that's getting flung about simply because I have a different belief or opinion than the majority, and the majority thinks I'm wrong (some think morally wrong) for holding it.

The majority are also not slinging shit. Even if I did agree with you that lunachick is the equivalent of a fundamentalist because she finds your position morally repugnant to the point of calling you a cunt (which I don't), I don't see how her stance can be extrapolated to a blanket statement on freethinkers or Kiwis or any other largish group she might be a member of.

[Godless Dave]

Being a freethinker means being willing to consider new or unusual opinions and ideas. But this issue is not new. As far as I'm concerned it was settled in 1776. If you want to reopen an issue this old you will need far more compelling arguments.

[Nil Desperandum]

Furthermore, whether or not I respect a person is by no means entirely dependant upon strength of belief. Many different factors come into play. I'm just saying that strong belief in something - especially if it's unfounded in truth - is worth some kind of respect. Even if it's only one iota, or a golf clap.
Emphasis mine.

I spent almost 3 months destroying lives over in Qatar. I think if you spent 3 months away from your lover (sorry, do not know her name), fighting for the strong beliefs of someone else that turn out to be lies and the arbinger of ever-increasing violence and destruction, and knowing you are personally responsible for said violence and destruction, then I think you'd slightly consider having respect for those strong beliefs.

IOW, you still respect Bush for shitting all over your homosexuality? To each their own, I suppose, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me, or many others. Especially having actually been there nearly first-hand and realizing I was lied to, taken advantage of, and a myriad of other words for a "respectable" belief completely lacking any validity whatsoever.

Chris

[Petra]

The majority are also not slinging shit. Even if I did agree with you that lunachick is the equivalent of a fundamentalist because she finds your position morally repugnant to the point of calling you a cunt (which I don't), I don't see how her stance can be extrapolated to a blanket statement on freethinkers or Kiwis or any other largish group she might be a member of.


Indeed.


I also rather unapologetic about the whole "cunt" thing. I'm frustrated I can't vote in the US elections at THIS time. Any other PotUS election has impacted to a degree on the world at large, but THIS time it's out of hand, and with the PNAC an' all, I wish I could vote! But I can't - and neither can millions who are wayyy more directly affected by the US than me and l'il ol' NZ.

And it never ceases to both amaze and amuse me that the word "cunt" is so much more offensive to many people than the words, actions, and intent of such things as "Shock and Awe". I'd much rather have people running around using obscene language all day, than have people running around doing obscene things like lie, cheat, steal, kill and terrorise. But then I'm weird like that.


As for Kerry being a wishy-washy fence sitter - you may want to read up on some of the things Kerry has fought for in the past, and has gone up against some big guns in some unpopular causes - and won. He didn't back down, he wasn't wishy-washy, he was not a fence-sitter, and he sure as hell wasn't weak. He showed integrity and courage - and oodles of intelligence.

But he's increasingly my choice - the more I learn about him, the more impressed I am with what he stands for. He doesn't have to be your choice, Bree.


I AM passionate about the vote, and I am passionate in my fear and loathing of Bush. Not voting is like saying - "oh, yeah, people are dying, the environment is going to shit, but y'know...whatever - finding that perfect shade of lipstick is just worth so much more of my time and effort, y'know". And I'm passionate in what I think of that self-absorbed apathy, too. As you well know!

In two weeks is what I believe to be the most important election in the world for a very long time, and it is one that will set the tone for the rest of the century. And I don't think I'm exaggerating on that point. It's one of them make 'em or break 'em points in history - like Sept 11 was. This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around, y'hear!

[wei yau]

As for Kerry being a wishy-washy fence sitter - you may want to read up on some of the things Kerry has fought for in the past, and has gone up against some big guns in some unpopular causes - and won. He didn't back down, he wasn't wishy-washy, he was not a fence-sitter, and he sure as hell wasn't weak. He showed integrity and courage - and oodles of intelligence.

Yup. Start here: Kerry and the BCCI (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html)

[Dingfod]

Personally, I find someone saying I'm compromising by exercising my right to vote a wee bit condescending. Then to top that off you've more or less said all of us are not very understanding. That is just plain insulting. There have been a number of folks participating in this thread that have been giving pretty convincing arguments about why this may be the most important election in your lifetime, if for no other reason, protecting and promoting the rights of homosexual Americans. A few have been critical and even insulting, but for the most part, most have been merely presenting arguments about why you should vote and why you should vote for their candidate, so why paint the lot of us with that broad brush?

I really don't give a shit who you vote for or really if you even vote, I don't know you, but I do know you are not alone in your feeling of not making any difference. Nearly half of the eligible voters do not vote for various reasons, disgust and despair for just two, abject laziness for another. Here in Oklahoma I definitely will not make any difference in this Nov. 2nd's re-election at the presidential level. Lord knows, I've thrown my vote to third party candidates enough times in the past in my feeble little protest over the choices I've been given. I've even had feelings of despair about it as recently as a month ago, even thought about not voting at all. But, I just cannot leave our life and future completely in the hands of others.

But, I've got to ask, if you knew your stance was unpopular and might well draw criticism, why did you even bring it up?

[ApostateAbe]

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.

[LadyXoc]

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.

Would you cast your ballot if we got liv to spank you?

[Roland98]

Kerry is a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the balls to make a firm stance on an issue, for fear that he might lose votes.

Can you say why you think that? You say you've studied them both; I'll ask again if you've read Kerry's site and history? Because as others have pointed out, he's anything but. He's split with his party on issues he thought were important, and as I said before, he voted against DOMA even though that was a popular piece of legislation. So how do you come to the conclusion that he's a wishy-washy fence-sitter?

[ApostateAbe]

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.
Would you cast your ballot if we got liv to spank you? It depends, I don't know what she looks like.

[wade-w]

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.

I see. So you're going to throw a tantrum too?

[Dingfod]

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.Is begging and pleading OK?

[Goliath]

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.

Then you wish to become part of the problem, too? Why?

[wei yau]

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.

You know what else doesn't work?

Throwing away your vote to prove some overly idealistic point. Throwing away your vote because you've not done the research to see just how the two candidates differ tremendously. Throwing away your vote as a childish temper tantrum. Throwing away your vote because you'd rather give up instead of fighting.

[livius drusus]

Um... I doubt that browbeating Abe is going to stop him from ripping up his ballot in protest of browbeating. I think it's deep breath time, y'all.

[Nil Desperandum]

I'm seriously curious, and I'll take any heat you throw at me -- I'm voting Libertarian. What's the synopsis on that?

[lisarea]

I'm seriously curious, and I'll take any heat you throw at me -- I'm voting Libertarian. What's the synopsis on that?

You mean you're voting for the Bad Badtz-Maru guy for president?

And what do you mean by synopsis?

[Godless Dave]

I'm confident my ideal candidate will never run for president of the US in my lifetime. But that sure as hell doesn't keep me from voting.

[Nil Desperandum]

Yes, him.

And I mean, with the amount of people suggesting they vote for Kerry, and him alone, I'm curious what their stance would be on me voting Libertarian, as opposed to Democrat.

[JoeP]

I filled out my ballot, but I am thinking of ripping it up just to spite everyone who feels the need to degrade, insult and browbeat in order to help win the election. It doesn't work.
Would you cast your ballot if we got liv to spank you? It depends, I don't know what she looks like.
It won't matter, you'll be blindfolded.

[lisarea]

Yes, him.

And I mean, with the amount of people suggesting they vote for Kerry, and him alone, I'm curious what their stance would be on me voting Libertarian, as opposed to Democrat.

Well, if you're deciding between Democrats and Libertarians, I assume you vote largely on private social policy, such as marriage and drug laws and such.

Is that accurate?

What are your important issues? What criteria did you use when choosing Badnarik over Kerry?

Which of his policies do you support, and which don't you? Do you support his economic policies, for example?

[JoeP]

I rarely get into political discussions, and I will probably drop out of this one after this post too. I don't dispute the case nearly everyone is making that Bush is bad for America and bad for the world; I would vote if I could.

But no one has directly answered Bree's question: why are people so mean to her for her stated position? Indirectly, this thread has: because passions are so high. The distinction between not voting and voting for Bush is lost. Much of the argument has been about how bad Bush is, not about Bree's right to be unsure. (Aside: can you be 100% sure Kerry will not be worse, in some way? What if, by having to work with a Republican Senate/Congress, America becomes weaker in some aspect of homeland security, and there's another terrorist attack?) I'll ignore responses to that hypothetical, but the point is that if Bree is ambivalent, she has a right not to vote. (I'm not sure that's her position and I'm not speaking for her.)

Vigorous debate and persuasion are a part of a healthy democracy, but personal attacks aren't usually an effective tool. I won't quote anyone, but some of the attitudes here seem to be just like religious fundamentalists': so convinced of the facts that the opponent is morally wrong and deserving of every kind of weapon of "persuasion" or coercion.

Here's another reason why people could feel voting is a waste of time.

[D. Scarlatti]

Jeez. Never mind the goddamn candidate. Who the hell here would have picked John Kerry as their first choice? The point is, he's not a Republican, and he's undoubtedly got the best chance of all the former Democratic hopefuls of beating Bush. There aren't any James Madisons or John Marshalls running for office anymore.

Look at every miserable prick that's currently in power in Washington, from Tom DeLay to Dennis Hastert to Orrin Hatch to Mitch McConnell to Antonin Scalia to John Ashcroft to Dick Cheney to George Bush. What do they have in common? They're fucking Republicans. How do you get rid of Republicans? You replace them with Democrats. How much simpler does it get?

(Sorry third party voters, but this here two party system ain't going anywhere soon.)

[wildernesse]

But no one has directly answered Bree's question: why are people so mean to her for her stated position?

I feel that I answered her in my first post, back on the first page of this thread: we have a system of self-government in which we all must participate in order for it to work, and when citizens don't participate and don't pull their own weight, it's not fair to the rest of the community. Citizens are responsible, in the government we live in, for their own communities and governments--those who don't participate are being irresponsible.

Why are people "mean" to irresponsible people? Oh, I don't know--because in many cases they endanger the rest of us. In the rest of the cases, we have to pick up their slack.

[D. Scarlatti]

But no one has directly answered Bree's question: why are people so mean to her for her stated position?

Who cares. "Mean." Good grief. What are we, babies?

It's the OP that hasn't addressed the myriad of reasons given that she should vote, particularly in a battleground state.

[Godless Dave]

Let me put it this way. If I opened a thread in the Sexuality forum titled "I have sex with multiple partners and never use a condom, and I'm proud of it", do you think the freethinkers here would give careful consideration to my "unpopular opinion"?

I hope not.

[Adora]

Random question from someone South of the Border and West of the IDL...

Why isn't voting compulsory in the US anyway?

Yeah yeah, I know I'm stepping right into it, but it's just plain scary to me that a country that touts itself as "leader of the free world" has a maximum voter turnout rate of about 75% in the best states (let's not even talk about the worst). Why hasn't a rule ever been made that it should be compulsory? Or, has anyone ever tried and been denounced because of it? Does it somehow violate constitutional rights or something?

And just as a total pointless opinion, if you don't want to do it for your country, for fucks sake, do it for mine. I don't think I could last another 4 years under the thumb of Karl Rove & the Project for the New American Century, doubled with another 3 under Howard & his Neo-Liberal Economics. Please, think of the kittens... I mean foreigners.

[Dingfod]

Manditory voting wouldn't be very "free", would it? In fact, some people are so fucking ignorant, I'm not sure I want them voting anyway. Maybe there should be a test.

[Adora]

Maybe there should be a test.

That's what happened in Florida, remember? Who would you get to do the test? Private companies manipulated by blue-blood autocrats running their campaign on daddy's money? And since when was voting about knowledge anyway? I was always under the impression that voting in a democratic country was your responsibility as the payoff you have for the right to live in one. If someone wants that right, no matter how pig-ignorant they are, they have to take on that responsibility.

Also, on the concept of "freedom" and mandatory voting, you have the choice not to vote in my country. You have that freedom. There isn't an electrode inserted into your brain that will kill you if you don't, just as there isn't one there preventing you commiting other crimes. There is, however, a penalty if you don't. There is nothing stopping you using your will to choose it except this penalty, as with any crime. It's only a fine, but it's there to encourage better citzenship. If the people are actually forced to integrate into the political discourse in the country, they're more likely to educate themselves about the choices they're making politically, so they don't vote for the person who is going to negatively effect them moreso than the next one.

Look at it this way. If you give Joe Pigfarmer the requirement that he has to vote for person A or person B, or else he gets fined $500. Now really, 10 minutes out of your day isn't worth $500, unless you're a really high-class hooker (does the US hold its elections on weekdays or weekends, anyway?). To make sure he doesn't vote for the guy who's going to make pigfarming illegal, he is far more likely to educate himself even a little bit so that he knows which one not to vote for. However, if the voting isn't compulsory and there is no repurcussions of him ignoring his duty as a citizen, he's less likely to care about the actual political process, and if he does vote, he's less likely to be educated even a little bit to make an 'informed' choice.

This is why I believe in compulsory voting on a practical level. It encourages people to care about politics even just a little bit, yes, even if the only reason they do this is because they will be punished if they don't, and no, that's not very "free". I don't think it has anything to do with freedom though, but simple building a half-decent democracy and country, as with any crime/punishment, right/responsibility law that we live our lives by. You're not free to commit acts that are detremental to other members of society, and I consider not voting when you are a citizen in a democratic country to be a detremental act, to yourself and others.

[Dingfod]

Inaction is a detrimental act. Hmmm, interesting.

It is a fact that our current administration was put there garnering less than 28% of the eligible voters input. Even though I think that is terrible, I would not make voting compulsary. That would go against my view that people should be allowed the freedom to choose to participate in governing or not. Not voting is complete acceptance of either the status quo or the wisdom (or wizdumb) of others.

There are other things they could do to increase turnout, have election day on Saturday or Sunday or both, extend voting periods to a week. They could also shorten the campaigning time so that fewer people get turned off by the ugly political bullshit. There are probably plenty of other things, but I'm too frazzled to thing of them right now.

[Godless Dave]

And just as a total pointless opinion, if you don't want to do it for your country, for fucks sake, do it for mine. I don't think I could last another 4 years under the thumb of Karl Rove & the Project for the New American Century, doubled with another 3 under Howard & his Neo-Liberal Economics.
Hey, you guys had your chance to vote our lackey Howard out.

[wei yau]

Manditory voting wouldn't be very "free", would it?

I don't know about that, I think mandatory voting is a good thing. There can always be a "No Vote" option on the ballot. This is no different than not voting, actually it's better for those who want to make a point with their non-vote instead of being grouped together with the apathetic.

I don't know of any good reason to oppose mandatory voting.

[JoeP]

Would it be better for a given US citizen to vote for Bush or to abstain from voting (for a president), if he/she refused to vote for Kerry or any other candidates?

[Clutch Munny]

I'm not planning to vote at all, and I don't care what any of you think of it.


:canada:

[Godless Dave]

I'm seriously curious, and I'll take any heat you throw at me -- I'm voting Libertarian. What's the synopsis on that?
It depends. Are you in a state that is looking like it will definitely go for Bush? Then I'm not too concerned, but I'd still like to urge you to vote for Kerry. I am positive he is not out to infringe on our civil liberties.

But if you are in a swing state, then I'd pissed that you are not doing whatever it takes to get Bush out of the White House. But it's still better than not voting at all.

[Bella]

But no one has directly answered Bree's question: why are people so mean to her for her stated position? Indirectly, this thread has: because passions are so high. The distinction between not voting and voting for Bush is lost. Much of the argument has been about how bad Bush is, not about Bree's right to be unsure.
Thank you, JoeP!

I was always under the impression that your vote was reserved for your use alone - you cast it according to your personal beliefs as to which candidate was in your opinion the best guy for the job. Call me naive, but it never crossed my mind that your vote was something that had to be used up, even for a candidate that you didn't believe in.

Keep in mind that my stance on this issue encompasses MYSELF only. I don't care what 99.9% of you, or anyone, does with their vote. I don't think that your personal integrity is somehow lowered by a compromise when you go to the polls. I apologise if I've insulted some of you inadvertantly (warrenly, for example) but let me assure you this is not the case.
Throwing away your vote to prove some overly idealistic point. Throwing away your vote because you've not done the research to see just how the two candidates differ tremendously. Throwing away your vote as a childish temper tantrum. Throwing away your vote because you'd rather give up instead of fighting.
How is exercising my right to - or not to - vote throwing away my vote? Simply because I'm not doing something you agree with? Say I'm a Republican (which I am not) and vote for Bush (which I obviously would never do), would that also be wasting my vote?

Would a vote for Mickey Mouse be better than not voting for president at all (please keep in mind that I am voting in local and state elections)?
Would it be better for a given US citizen to vote for Bush or to abstain from voting (for a president), if he/she refused to vote for Kerry or any other candidates?

[Godless Dave]

I was always under the impression that your vote was reserved for your use alone - you cast it according to your personal beliefs as to which candidate was in your opinion the best guy for the job. Call me naive, but it never crossed my mind that your vote was something that had to be used up, even for a candidate that you didn't believe in. By not voting, you are ceding your influence over our government to other people. Why would you want to do that?

Do you really not care whether Bush or Kerry wins?

I just don't understand how anyone can not care who the president is - and why they would be "proud" not to care.

[Goliath]

Second verse, same as the first:

Bree, do you want to be a part of the problem, or the part of the solution to said problem? Why can't you give an answer to that question?

[Bella]

Bree, do you want to be a part of the problem, or the part of the solution to said problem? Why can't you give an answer to that question?
I want to exercise my right to vote or not to vote as I see fit.

So, to answer your question, I will write-in "Mickey Mouse" on my ballot and therefore be part of the solution to 'said problem' - I'm using my vote and not voting for Bush, therefore there is no waste involved.

[Godless Dave]

If you really want to get rid of Bush, why not vote for Kerry?

[Nil Desperandum]

I'm seriously curious, and I'll take any heat you throw at me -- I'm voting Libertarian. What's the synopsis on that?
It depends. Are you in a state that is looking like it will definitely go for Bush? Then I'm not too concerned, but I'd still like to urge you to vote for Kerry. I am positive he is not out to infringe on our civil liberties.

But if you are in a swing state, then I'd pissed that you are not doing whatever it takes to get Bush out of the White House. But it's still better than not voting at all.
Colorado. If Amendment 36 goes through, which it is looking like support is waning (divying up the electoral votes proportionally via popular vote), then I am not quite sure how that would work out. It would look like Kerry would get 5 or 6 electoral votes (IF IT PASSED), and bush getting 4 or 3 electoral votes. Either way, Bush gets an electoral vote. Colorado is showing Weak Kerry right now, however. I'll have to look up on 36, however.

I am admittingly ignorant in politics and the bigger picture. I'm doing my best to actually be informed, by reading up on local ballots, and pretty soon, the local candidates. I want to do my part, especially since I'm going to be jailed a week later. My vote wouldn't count in prison, and since I get this chance, I'm taking it!

Anyway, yeah, I don't think Kerry is out to get my civil liberties either. As a matter of fact, I'm rather impressed by his abilities lately. I think, unfortunately, that he is to MUCH more than Bush could ever be, that he looks like a diamond next to a rock,when the reality is, he is just a slightly shinier rock, all things considered.

I would prefer to vote for the candidate that most closely matches my own view of the world. I'm very adamant about the war in Iraq and being anti-military/anti-government, in terms of protrusion. I do not want anything to do with the military any longer, and I don't see Kerry doing much about the Middle East that will change.

I KNOW he'll do better than Bush, by far. I have hope for Kerry, I feel that my vote will best, for all people involved, going for Libertarian. If I were in Wisconsin or Ohio, that might be a different story, though. :P

[lisarea]

Bree, I have explicitly answered the question at least once.

The fact that you're claiming that nobody's addressing the actual question leads me to believe that you're not really interested in the answer.

[Godless Dave]

Colorado. If Amendment 36 goes through, which it is looking like support is waning (divying up the electoral votes proportionally via popular vote), then I am not quite sure how that would work out. It would look like Kerry would get 5 or 6 electoral votes (IF IT PASSED), and bush getting 4 or 3 electoral votes. Either way, Bush gets an electoral vote. Colorado is showing Weak Kerry right now, however. I'll have to look up on 36, however.
If Amendment 36 is on the same ballot as the presidential election, I'd be really surprised if the Amendment takes effect this election. It probably would take effect in 2008.

And if, as you say, you think Kerry would be far better than Bush, I'd like to urge you to vote for Kerry. If any Libertarian candidates are running for state or local office your vote would go to better use there.

[Godless Dave]

I want to exercise my right to vote or not to vote as I see fit.

And we are questioning why you "see fit" not to choose between Bush and Kerry.

So, to answer your question, I will write-in "Mickey Mouse" on my ballot and therefore be part of the solution to 'said problem' - I'm using my vote and not voting for Bush, therefore there is no waste involved.
That doesn't make sense and you know it.

[Godless Dave]

Bree, I have explicitly answered the question at least once.
As has Wildernesse. Does the concept of "civic duty" elude you? Democracy isn't a free ride.

[Nil Desperandum]

If Amendment 36 is on the same ballot as the presidential election, I'd be really surprised if the Amendment takes effect this election. It probably would take effect in 2008.
It takes effect this year. :P Some argue that, by doing this, candidates fight for a net electoral vote of 1, which means we'll be taken off the map. Others argue it'll get people out to vote more, because their voice will be heard. And, in the event of a 3rd party candidate getting one vote (by needing approximately 5.56%), then both major candidates get 4 electoral votes each. What do you think? I'm woefully ignorant, help.

And if, as you say, you think Kerry would be far better than Bush, I'd like to urge you to vote for Kerry. If any Libertarian candidates are running for state or local office your vote would go to better use there.
If I registered Libertarian, can I still vote for Kerry if I so choose, and go Libertarian local? www.electoral-vote.com shows the state going Weak Bush, now. It might be closer than I thought. :( Help!!

Chris

[Nil Desperandum]

n/m. :P

[Godless Dave]

If Amendment 36 is on the same ballot as the presidential election, I'd be really surprised if the Amendment takes effect this election. It probably would take effect in 2008.It takes effect this year. :P
That is seriously fucked up!


Some argue that, by doing this, candidates fight for a net electoral vote of 1, which means we'll be taken off the map. Others argue it'll get people out to vote more, because their voice will be heard. And, in the event of a 3rd party candidate getting one vote (by needing approximately 5.56%), then both major candidates get 4 electoral votes each. What do you think? I'm woefully ignorant, help.
I think it would be a great idea if all states did it; it would bring the electoral vote closer to reflecting the popular vote. But I'm in favor of doing away with the electoral college altogether and replacing it with a straight nation-wide popular vote.

If I registered Libertarian, can I still vote for Kerry if I so choose, and go Libertarian local?
Of course. Your party registration only limits which primary you can vote in. In a general election you can vote for candidates from multiple parties.

[Nil Desperandum]

If Amendment 36 is on the same ballot as the presidential election, I'd be really surprised if the Amendment takes effect this election. It probably would take effect in 2008.It takes effect this year. :P
That is seriously fucked up!
Yeah, but that's the quickest fucking change I've ever seen in politics!

[I think it would be a great idea if all states did it; it would bring the electoral vote closer to reflecting the popular vote. But I'm in favor of doing away with the electoral college altogether and replacing it with a straight nation-wide popular vote.
Word, word. I think it would be a start. Nebraska and Maine are already doing it, and I believe in Maine, electoral votes get divvied out by majority in each congressional district. Why are you against the electoral college?

Of course. Your party registration only limits which primary you can vote in. In a general election you can vote for candidates from multiple parties.
Ah HA. Well, I'll definitely look into it. Keeping an open mind at all, especially since Colorado seems wishy-washy.

Chris

[Godless Dave]

Why are you against the electoral college?
Because, as happened in 2000, the candidate who gets the most votes nationally can still lose to a candidate who wins the right states.

[lisarea]

Yeah, but that's the quickest fucking change I've ever seen in politics!

It's actually kind of retroactive, depending on how you look at it.


Word, word. I think it would be a start. Nebraska and Maine are already doing it, and I believe in Maine, electoral votes get divvied out by majority in each congressional district. Why are you against the electoral college?

They don't do the same thing as the Colorado proposal. They give their two house votes to the majority party, then divvy up the rest. Colorado's proposal would make the state go fully proportional.

[lisarea]

Why are you against the electoral college?
Because, as happened in 2000, the candidate who gets the most votes nationally can still lose to a candidate who wins the right states.

There was a recent thread on the EC here. There are any number of arguments against it, but they all come down to the fact that the EC can easily sway differently from the popular vote.

The way the EC is set up, it gives greater influence to votes in relatively unpopulated states (and to states with greater proportion of children), so national elections tend to focus more strongly on issues important to those populations, including things like farming, traditional household dynamics, etc. We're talking the Bible Belt here, remember. More populated states--those including large urban areas--get relatively little influence for their individual votes.

[Goliath]

I want to exercise my right to vote or not to vote as I see fit.

So, to answer your question, I will write-in "Mickey Mouse" on my ballot and therefore be part of the solution to 'said problem' - I'm using my vote and not voting for Bush, therefore there is no waste involved.

But will writing in "Mickey Mouse" actually help defeat Bush? Do you think that if Mickey Mouse were running, that he'd steal a significant number of votes from Bush?

Do you not see the damage that Bush has caused this country? Or do you just not give a fuck about what happens?

[Nil Desperandum]

Yeah, but that's the quickest fucking change I've ever seen in politics!

It's actually kind of retroactive, depending on how you look at it.
Sometimes, I really wonder why off-the-wall comments like these appear. hehe. Sure, it'll be retroactive, but ... yeah, ok, anyway. :buttkick:

They don't do the same thing as the Colorado proposal. They give their two house votes to the majority party, then divvy up the rest. Colorado's proposal would make the state go fully proportional.
Roger that.

[Petra]

The fact that you're claiming that nobody's addressing the actual question leads me to believe that you're not really interested in the answer.

Like Barbara Bush said on Good Morning America, March 18, 2003:

"But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

[wei yau]

How is exercising my right to - or not to - vote throwing away my vote? Simply because I'm not doing something you agree with? Say I'm a Republican (which I am not) and vote for Bush (which I obviously would never do), would that also be wasting my vote?

Would a vote for Mickey Mouse be better than not voting for president at all (please keep in mind that I am voting in local and state elections)?


My memory may be faulty, but I've not yet criticized you on whom you are voting for, simply that I don't agree with your stance on not voting (and being proud of it). A vote for Micky Mouse, IMO, is the same as a vote for any of the third-party candidates out there this year. This year, as with every election year, it comes down to two parties. I'm not crazy about that situation, but that's the way it is.

I don't care who you vote for, it's none of my business. But, I am upset that you would choose not to vote at all. Your OP asked why this is the case, in a general sense, it's because your inaction will have an affect on me....however indirectly. But, in a more specific sense, I feel that reasons given by your for not voting simply do not stand up to scrutiny. Surely, you're under no obligation to do so, but it still upsets me.

I think I'd respect pure apathy more than baseless rationale.

[lisarea]

Yeah, but that's the quickest fucking change I've ever seen in politics!

It's actually kind of retroactive, depending on how you look at it.
Sometimes, I really wonder why off-the-wall comments like these appear. hehe. Sure, it'll be retroactive, but ... yeah, ok, anyway. :buttkick:

Sometimes, I really wonder why people don't understand things like the fact that the constitutionality of retroactive legislation will be challenged, but...yeah, ok, anyway.

Thanks for the buttkick or whatever, dude.

[Petra]

Say I'm a Republican (which I am not) and vote for Bush (which I obviously would never do), would that also be wasting my vote?

Actually, you say that you would obviously never vote for Bush, but the way I see it is that abstaining from voting or throwing your vote on Mickey Mouse is giving your vote to Bush.

Bree, I'm kinda sorry I threw stones at your "pride" - kinda - but I don't think you are aware of the gravity of this particular election and what the repercussions of another Bush term would be. I know I'm a hot head, but as someone else said somewhere - if you aren't ouraged, then you aren't paying attention. I've been paying attention, and you bet I'm outraged.

Please, please help us to get rid of this dangerous and deluded man, and the people behind that negative power. And the truth is, the only sure fire way to be rid of him is to vote Democrat. Vote libertarian, or green, or independant, or disney in 2008 - this coming election is too important to risk a fractured majority giving the power back to a minority government like BushCo.

Wish I could swap places with you - you can stay home on election day, and I'll cast the vote instead. Alas, it ain't like that, though.

Here is some stuff detailing Kerry if you need more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

www.johnkerry.com

The link eldar1011 posted earlier is also good, and will show you how Kerry is a man of intelligence, courage and integrity. Kerry is about the best you're going to get for another generation or two, and I sincerely think he'lll be a President to be proud of. If anyone can pull the US out of the shit, it's him. I really do believe that.

[Nil Desperandum]

I can clearly glean
<snip>the constitutionality of retroactive legislation will be challenged<snip>
from
It's actually kind of retroactive, depending on how you look at it.

So, now that you've actually explained what you meant, it doesn't seem so off-the-cuff, and we can continue our discourse.

So, you think that Amendment 36 would be challenged for constititionality on what basis? I'm under a rather simplistic view that the people know they are voting for an Amendment that applies to the current election. Maybe if they were being hood-winked into electing Gore in 2000, but that would be a moot point. :P

Chris

[Dingfod]

Wish I could swap places with you - you can stay home on election day, and I'll cast the vote instead. Alas, it ain't like that, though.I'm sure it wouldn't be legal, but that would work here. I've never been asked to show ID to vote. I just tell them my name and what party so they can get the right book, sign my name next to my entry in the book, they give me a ballot, I mark the ballot in a voting "booth", then I put the ballot in the machine, then they give me an "I voted." sticker... and a cookie. :D

[Nil Desperandum]

I'm sure it wouldn't be legal, but that would work here. I've never been asked to show ID to vote. I just tell them my name and what party so they can get the right book, sign my name next to my entry in the book, they give me a ballot, I mark the ballot in a voting "booth", then I put the ballot in the machine, then they give me an "I voted." sticker... and a cookie. :D

That's cute. <3

[lisarea]

I can clearly glean
<snip>the constitutionality of retroactive legislation will be challenged<snip>
from
It's actually kind of retroactive, depending on how you look at it.

So, now that you've actually explained what you meant, it doesn't seem so off-the-cuff, and we can continue our discourse.

Hint: I'm not hebephrenic, and there's no reason to assume I am.

If you had a question about something I've said, you should have just asked, rather than just being obnoxious and making completely baseless comments about randomness. I've really been very patient with questions until now.


So, you think that Amendment 36 would be challenged for constititionality on what basis? I'm under a rather simplistic view that the people know they are voting for an Amendment that applies to the current election. Maybe if they were being hood-winked into electing Gore in 2000, but that would be a moot point. :P

Frankly, I'm tired of trying to explain things to people who don't pay attention. You can search on relevant terms to locate information on issues of retroactive legislation if you're interested, but I'm not your mama bird.

[Godless Dave]

Well, I'll explain it. The reason its constitutionality could be challenged is that retroactive legislation is, generally, unconstitutional. And this case is particularly blatant: voters get to decide, in this election, how the results of this election will be reflected in the Electoral College.

Of course the way the California gubernatorial recall worked was almost as fucked up, but that's California.

[Dingfod]

I do not see how deciding something now that applies to now is retroactive. Besides, the electoral process is decided after the actual election. Electors are not even chosen until then, right? No, I still don't see how this is retroactive.

Retroactive legislation is omething like when they passed laws changing the statute of limitations for certain crimes, say child sexual abuse. Court decisions said you cannot apply them to crimes committed outside of the old statute of limitations before the new statute was in place. Retroactive means in the past.

Let's say Colorado voted for Bush by a 2% margin in November, then held a special election in December changing the electoral methodology applying it to the election already held, that would be retroactive legislation. But, everyone voting Nov. 2nd should be fully aware that, depending on the outcome of that issue, the electoral votes might be different. If it changes how they vote, so be it. I don't really think there will be any grounds for challenge if it passes. But, that's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth, about two cents, give or take a couple.

Unless Colorado's state constitution specifies how the electoral votes are split, this might be just one more case where the state legislature has relinquished its authority to the citizenry via direct election. The U.S. Constitution gives that responsibility to the states, how they deal with it is their business. However, relinquishment of legislative responsibility is happening more and more all over the states. I don't know if this is the case here, was this an issue brought to a ballot by petition rather than the legislative process? If so, does this not subvert the representative democratic process? If your legislature is not responsive to the citizenry, why not just vote the bums out instead?

Maybe this should have a thread of it's own.

[viscousmemories]

I'm pretty surprised to see this thread still going. It seems like a pretty black and white issue to me, honestly. If you don't support Bush for President, there is only one thing you can do that has any real possibility of hurting his chances: Vote for Kerry. Nothing else you can do, from voting for Mickey Mouse to abstaining all together, has any chance of preventing Bush from winning. On the other hand, not voting for Kerry (ie. voting for Mickey, Mr. T, or not voting at all) might actually help Bush win.

So the realistic choices are: Possibly contribute to Bush losing or possibly contribute to his winning. Is there any chance that Kerry is going to be a worse President? I suppose it's possible, but I very honestly can't imagine how he could be.

[Nil Desperandum]

Hint: I'm not hebephrenic, and there's no reason to assume I am.
Well, good thing I wasn't assuming your hebephrenic tendencies, albeit your rude tendencies are clearly showing through.

If you had a question about something I've said, you should have just asked, rather than just being obnoxious and making completely baseless comments about randomness. I've really been very patient with questions until now.
Fuck, man! Ever heard of sarcasm? Chill the fuck out. I do not have telepathy, and there's no reason to assume I do. You assumed I could understand that you mentioning a technicality about Amendment 36 being retroactive means that I automatically know you are referring to it being unconstitutional, and how OMG WTF THAT'S SO COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS YOU FUCKING MORON STFU GO HOME ::: KICK ::: !!! Holy Smoking Jeebuz! :eek:

Frankly, I'm tired of trying to explain things to people who don't pay attention. You can search on relevant terms to locate information on issues of retroactive legislation if you're interested, but I'm not your mama bird.
Heh, I dont' know what the hell your problem is, but I was curious about YOUR reasoning. What exactly did I miss? The part where you clearly explained why it would be unconstitutional? Wait, that's right, you didn't explain ANYTHING, you just bit my head off, as if I'm somehow responsible for your shitty day or the fact SOMEONE else entirely is bothering you. First time we've ever talked, ma'am. Don't explain, if that is what suits you, but for the love of Satan, go bite someone else's head off. I didn't beat you as a child. I didn't keep my fatherly love from you. I didn't pull your hair on the playground, or throw grass in your hair, nor did I hang you out to dry at the school dance. I didn't crash into your car, I didn't subjugate your rights, and I didn't blow smoke in your face. In other words, I asked a simple fucking question, so shove it. Please? :)

Chris

[livius drusus]

I asked a simple fucking question

No, actually, you didn't. You did that stupid ass-kicking thing first. Meanwhile, Dave did answer you, but apparently that wasn't enticing enough to deserve the basic courtesy of a response from you.

I hope one of these days a person wiser than myself will explain to me why some people would rather rant about rudeness than answer courtesy in kind.

[Nil Desperandum]

No, actually, you didn't. You did that stupid ass-kicking thing first. Meanwhile, Dave did answer you, but apparently that wasn't enticing enough to deserve the basic courtesy of a response from you.
I highlighted it, just for you, where you are wrong. The ass-kicking thing was my sense of humor. I think you need one too for taking yourself too seriously.
:buttkick:
So, you think that Amendment 36 would be challenged for constititionality on what basis? I'm under a rather simplistic view that the people know they are voting for an Amendment that applies to the current election. Maybe if they were being hood-winked into electing Gore in 2000, but that would be a moot point. :P Chris

I hope one of these days a person wiser than myself will explain to me why some people would rather rant about rudeness than answer courtesy in kind.
I hope that wiser person will also explain to you the possibilities of someone having just enough time to respond to one post, close a thread-viewing window to do some work,and return later to respond appropriately to their interrogations being answered.
Here, you get another one:
:buttkick:

Chris

[Nil Desperandum]

Well, I'll explain it. The reason its constitutionality could be challenged is that retroactive legislation is, generally, unconstitutional. And this case is particularly blatant: voters get to decide, in this election, how the results of this election will be reflected in the Electoral College.

Of course the way the California gubernatorial recall worked was almost as fucked up, but that's California.

I'd have to go with what Warrenly responded with, in that it isn't retroactive, because it applies to a process that hasn't even happened yet.

Am I perhaps missing the chance that this amendment won't be enacted until post-electoral vote? Otherwise, I don't see it being retroactive.

Chris

[livius drusus]

I highlighted it, just for you, where you are wrong.

Aw... You're cute. Like bunnies. Too bad I said you did that ass-kicking thing first (see? I even highlighted it for you. I just never stop with the giving.), which is the reason she had no interest in answering your question when you finally got around to asking it.

As for your sense of humor, you have my deepest condolences. Perhaps there's some kind of implant you can look into to take care of that problem?

I hope that wiser person will also explain to you the possibilities of someone having just enough time to respond to one post, close a thread-viewing window to do some work,and return later to respond appropriately to their interrogations being answered.

Oh, I see. So you had limited time to answer on account of your ever-so compelling work obligations, and you chose to go on and on in a pointless rant instead of responding to the person who for some reason gives a rat's ass about explaining things to you.

Or wait.... Is that your sense of humor again? It's hard to tell. There's such a fine line between clever and stupid.

[Nil Desperandum]

Unless Colorado's state constitution specifies how the electoral votes are split, this might be just one more case where the state legislature has relinquished its authority to the citizenry via direct election. The U.S. Constitution gives that responsibility to the states, how they deal with it is their business. However, relinquishment of legislative responsibility is happening more and more all over the states. I don't know if this is the case here, was this an issue brought to a ballot by petition rather than the legislative process? If so, does this not subvert the representative democratic process? If your legislature is not responsive to the citizenry, why not just vote the bums out instead?

(b) THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION RESERVES TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE THE RIGHT TO ACT IN THE PLACE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN ANY LEGISLATIVE MATTER, AND THROUGH ENACTMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE PEOPLE DO HEREBY ACT AS THE LEGISLATURE OF COLORADO FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING THE MANNER OF ELECTING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION;
So, you were right, warrenly, and so was lisarea!

(f) IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS, THE VOTERS OF COLORADO DECLARE THAT, BY APPROVING THIS INITIATIVE, THEY UNDERSTAND, DESIRE, AND EXPECT THAT THE POPULAR PROPORTIONAL SELECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS IS INTENDED TO APPLY RETROACTIVELY AND THUS DETERMINE THE MANNER IN WHICH OUR STATE'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS ARE CHOSEN AND OUR STATE'S ELECTORAL VOTES ARE CAST FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 2004.
I don't entirely know what this means, but the Amendment says it is "declared by proclamation" after the votes have been "canvassed." Where does the retroactive part come in, SPECIFICALLY?

Chris

[lisarea]

I do not see how deciding something now that applies to now is retroactive. Besides, the electoral process is decided after the actual election. Electors are not even chosen until then, right? No, I still don't see how this is retroactive.

Yeah, that's why I put it in quotes. However:


The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

http://www.peo7.com/UsStateCode/PEOusLabor_Section1760.htm

From the text of the proposal itself:

(9) This section shall be effective on and after November 3, 2004.

From this page: (http://electionlawblog.org/archives/001970.html)

Thus Colorado must "chuse" its electors on November 2. Colorado will do so by vote of its people on November 2. The choice will be made under the existing "winner take all" approach, which will still be in effect on that date even if the initiative passes. The state could only choose electors after November 2 if there was a failure to choose them on November 2 (see 3 U.S.C. section 2) or if an elector position becomes vacant (see 3 U.S.C. section 4).

So, honestly: I'm not sure. Unless I'm missing something, the electors are supposed to be officially appointed November 2, and the law takes effect November 3. So unless for some reason the electors are not appointed on the 2nd, I don't understand why people are calling it retroactive, nor why people think it would affect the upcoming election.

The initiative is also challenged on the basis of the definition of the "legislature," as the constitution says that apportionment of electoral votes is determined by the legislature, and if passed, it would likely go to court to determine whether a popular vote counts as such.

Anyway, if it passes, it will go to court. (Someone already tried the other day, in fact, but I think it's been thrown out.)

[Nil Desperandum]

I highlighted it, just for you, where you are wrong.

Aw... You're cute. Like bunnies. Too bad I said you did that ass-kicking thing first (see? I even highlighted it for you. I just never stop with the giving.), which is the reason she had no interest in answering your question when you finally got around to asking it.
I did the ass-kicking thing first. There is no disputing that. You said I didn't ask her a question, and I pointed out where I did. What is to not understand?

As for your sense of humor, you have my deepest condolences. Perhaps there's some kind of implant you can look into to take care of that problem?
Perhaps not, since I enjoy my sense of humor. I don't need to make you laugh to feel better about myself, so there's no problem here, insofar as it effects me. :)

Oh, I see. So you had limited time to answer on account of your ever-so compelling work obligations, and you chose to go on and on in a pointless rant instead of responding to the person who for some reason gives a rat's ass about explaining things to you.
Ever-so compelling? You have a flair for the dramatic. Feeling emotional lately? On the up-swing of just another manic episode? I have work to do. I responded to a post, realized how much time I gave to it, and then left, and then came back while I was free. It would appear you enjoy rambling about pointless crap as much as I do. Welcome to the club. :P

Or wait.... Is that your sense of humor again? It's hard to tell. There's such a fine line between clever and stupid.
Much as I explained to lisarea:

I didn't beat you as a child. I didn't keep my fatherly love from you. I didn't pull your hair on the playground, or throw grass in your hair, nor did I hang you out to dry at the school dance. I didn't crash into your car, I didn't subjugate your rights, and I didn't blow smoke in your face.

So, please, save it.
Chris

[lisarea]

OMG WTF THAT'S SO COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS YOU FUCKING MORON STFU GO HOME ::: KICK ::: !!! Holy Smoking Jeebuz! :eek:

You're implying that I'm a moron?

You'll understand, of course, if I don't really give a fuck what your interpretation is.

[Nil Desperandum]

OMG WTF THAT'S SO COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS YOU FUCKING MORON STFU GO HOME ::: KICK ::: !!! Holy Smoking Jeebuz! :eek:

You're calling me a moron?

You'll understand, of course, if I don't really give a fuck what you think.
??
What!?
NO!!

I guess I should have done this instead, so you could see that my response was intended to convey your overreaction to a simple question:

OMG WTF THAT'S SO COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS YOU FUCKING MORON STFU GO HOME ::: KICK :::
since you felt it was so obvious your statement referring to retroactivity clearly inferred you were talking about it's unconstitutionality and how it would obviously be challenged, and your subsequent desire for me to be telepathic and read this from the post.

You can clearly see that communication here is simply being misconstrued. I, however, won't get my panties in a ruffle over it.

So, I hope you understand when I don't give a fuck who pissed in your Wheaties this morning, because it certainly wasn't me. ;)

Chris

[godfry n. glad]

Minnesota still has an electoral college, which means they can still vote against the populace, right?[/COLOR]

No.

Whoever wins the popular vote in your state wins those electoral votes.

Actually, there is no law against the electors voting against popular vote.

In some states there are.

godfry

[Nil Desperandum]

Since communication is so wonderful, I felt the need to tell anyone crawling up my ass because of their shitty day:

I'm leaving. I'm going home. That takes time. I won't be able to respond to your post. Or anyone else's post. I certainly hope this doesn't cause anyone to have a fucking aneurism, collapse in sadness, or any other myriad of crap emotional reactions, simply because fights need to be picked because someone isn't getting laid, isn't getting paid enough, or any other number of reasons for the hostility expressed today at my akward sense of humor, and little else.

[/Disclaimer]

Chris :ferret:

[lisarea]

So, I hope you understand when I don't give a fuck who pissed in your Wheaties this morning, because it certainly wasn't me. ;)


You made some assholean comment about not knowing where such 'random' comments came from, rather than simply asking what I was referring to.

Even if you haven't heard of the challenges regarding its 'retroactive' aspect, you can assume that I didn't just pull it out of my ass for no fucking reason, or at the very least not assume that I'm just typing randomly. You could have looked it the fuck up yourself, or you could have asked directly, rather than in a manner that wasn't rude, dismissive, and unnecessarily offensive. This can't be the first time something's gone over your head.

I am very patient with politely phrased questions or even with misunderstandings. You no longer merit patience.

[godfry n. glad]

I've never been asked to show ID to vote. I just tell them my name and what party so they can get the right book, sign my name next to my entry in the book, they give me a ballot, I mark the ballot in a voting "booth", then I put the ballot in the machine, then they give me an "I voted." sticker... and a cookie. :D

Ahhhh.... The good ol' days.

We don't get to go to the precinct polls anymore. They mail us the ballot(s), we fill 'em out and send 'em to the county elections. It's vote by mail.

It's a disappointment to me. I liked going to the polls. It was a community event.

godfry

[Adora]

*coughs and raises hand* Sorry to interrupt, but another question that I've had on my mind for a while about the US system just rose to the surface.

When you register to vote, you register to vote for a certain party, right? So if you show up on the day and vote for someone other than the group you registered to vote for, do you get punished, somehow?

[Goliath]

When you register to vote, you register to vote for a certain party, right?

If you register to vote, yes (some states, including North Dakota, do not require registration to vote). However, you can register yourself as an independent if you want.



So if you show up on the day and vote for someone other than the group you registered to vote for, do you get punished, somehow?

Nope.

[livius drusus]

No ma'am. You can register for one of the two major parties or you can register as an Independent. The major party thing allows you to vote in the primary of whichever party you've chosen, but in the general election all options are open.

[LadyShea]

When you register to vote, you register to vote for a certain party, right?

You can but are not required to declare a party

So if you show up on the day and vote for someone other than the group you registered to vote for, do you get punished, somehow?

Declared party only effects the primaries. Registered Democrats cannot vote in the Repulican primaries, for example. General elections you can vote for whomever you want

[wade-w]

No ma'am. You can register for one of the two major parties or you can register as an Independent. The major party thing allows you to vote in the primary of whichever party you've chosen, but in the general election all options are open.

And even that varies from state to state. It may have changed, but when one party has a particularly strong candidate, it used to be a common tactic in Georgia for members of the other party to vote for weak candidates in the opposing party's primary.

[Godless Dave]

Some states, like mine, have open primaries. You never have to declare your party affiliation in Minnesota.

Unless you want to participate in the party caucuses, then you have to sign a pledge saying you consider yourself a member of the party in whose caucus you're participating. But that's a whole other ball of wax.

And to clarify, primaries are elections for the parties to decide who their candidates will be. I'm curious how it works in Australia. How did Labo(u)r, for example, decide that Mark Latham would be their leader?

[livius drusus]

And even that varies from state to state. It may have changed, but when one party has a particularly strong candidate, it used to be a common tactic in Georgia for members of the other party to vote for weak candidates in the opposing party's primary.

True that, wade. Party Affiliation and Primary Voting (http://www.fec.gov/votregis/primaryvoting.htm)

[Dingfod]

From here: (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-4.html)

The SCOTUS decided in Calder v. Bull (1798) that the ex post facto law prohibition in Article 1, section 10, of the U.S. Constitution only applies to criminal law, not civil law and that, as faulty as the logic might have been, has not been overturned. In fact, only reinforced by more recent decisions. If a challenge to this Colorado elector issue got thrown out, I understand why.

[lisarea]

No ma'am. You can register for one of the two major parties or you can register as an Independent. The major party thing allows you to vote in the primary of whichever party you've chosen, but in the general election all options are open.

There are also usually minor parties registered within the state, too. For example, were I to declare as a Libertarian or a Green or something, it'd show up as such on my registration. If I were to list a non-registered party, I think it'd show up as Other, or maybe even Unaffiliated.

As far as primary voting, some states have open and some have closed (meaning that you can only vote for candidates in primaries for your affiliated party--this is why I'm a Republican right now). However, I think everyone can vote on ballot issues, but that might be a state-by-state thing, too.

[godfry n. glad]

But no one has directly answered Bree's question: why are people so mean to her for her stated position? Indirectly, this thread has: because passions are so high. The distinction between not voting and voting for Bush is lost. Much of the argument has been about how bad Bush is, not about Bree's right to be unsure.
Thank you, JoeP!

I was always under the impression that your vote was reserved for your use alone - you cast it according to your personal beliefs as to which candidate was in your opinion the best guy for the job. Call me naive, but it never crossed my mind that your vote was something that had to be used up, even for a candidate that you didn't believe in.

Keep in mind that my stance on this issue encompasses MYSELF only. I don't care what 99.9% of you, or anyone, does with their vote. I don't think that your personal integrity is somehow lowered by a compromise when you go to the polls. I apologise if I've insulted some of you inadvertantly (warrenly, for example) but let me assure you this is not the case.


Bravo!

At base, you need not tell people who, or if, you voted. We have a secret ballot in this country for a reason. (In Australia, they have a secret ballot, too, but you're fined if you don't vote...it's the law!)

I have been known to tell people who enquire about my vote that it is none of their damned business.

If you want people to stop being mean to you, stop telling them that you intend to not vote. You invite such boorish behavior in so doing...just as someone who broadcasts their preference does.

godfry

[Dingfod]

I have been known to tell people who enquire about my vote that it is none of their damned business.One year, probably during the 80s, I called my dad and asked him "How did you vote?" He said "By secret ballot." and he meant just what you said, it was none of my business. Damn, it was hard to get to know the inner workings of that guy. It is still the case. He may have voted for Reagan back then, but I'd bet a million dollars if I had it that he wouldn't vote for Bush, my mother would skin him alive if he did.

[Bella]

I have been known to tell people who enquire about my vote that it is none of their damned business.

If you want people to stop being mean to you, stop telling them that you intend to not vote. You invite such boorish behavior in so doing...just as someone who broadcasts their preference does.
Who said wisdom doesn't come with age? Thank you, godfry :).

What originally started my friend and I down this rocky road was the fact that employees were walking about with Kerry/Edwards or Bush/Cheney buttons and stickers on their nametags. We thought the workplace was a mighty poor place to be advertising your political preferences, and so we decided that we would join in the frey. What we've learnt is that no matter how worked up people get over Bush/Kerry, they get even more worked up when they think that your non-vote is going to make the other party win - even more worked up than if you simply blatently stated you were going to vote for the opposing party.

[Godless Dave]

What originally started my friend and I down this rocky road was the fact that employees were walking about with Kerry/Edwards or Bush/Cheney buttons and stickers on their nametags. We thought the workplace was a mighty poor place to be advertising your political preferences
How come?


What we've learnt is that no matter how worked up people get over Bush/Kerry, they get even more worked up when they think that your non-vote is going to make the other party win - even more worked up than if you simply blatently stated you were going to vote for the opposing party.
I imagine some of them were worked up for the same reason I am: that a young woman with a lot at stake in this election would not only shirk her duty as a citizen but take pride in it.

[Nil Desperandum]

So, I hope you understand when I don't give a fuck who pissed in your Wheaties this morning, because it certainly wasn't me. ;)


You made some assholean comment about not knowing where such 'random' comments came from, rather than simply asking what I was referring to.

Even if you haven't heard of the challenges regarding its 'retroactive' aspect, you can assume that I didn't just pull it out of my ass for no fucking reason, or at the very least not assume that I'm just typing randomly. You could have looked it the fuck up yourself, or you could have asked directly, rather than in a manner that wasn't rude, dismissive, and unnecessarily offensive. This can't be the first time something's gone over your head.

I am very patient with politely phrased questions or even with misunderstandings. You no longer merit patience.

I'd hate to think what you are like in person if you get this worked up over a fucking emoticon. :buttkick:

Anyway, on with the show. :D

[Nil Desperandum]

From here: (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-4.html)

The SCOTUS decided in Calder v. Bull (1798) that the ex post facto law prohibition in Article 1, section 10, of the U.S. Constitution only applies to criminal law, not civil law and that, as faulty as the logic might have been, has not been overturned. In fact, only reinforced by more recent decisions. If a challenge to this Colorado elector issue got thrown out, I understand why.

Thanks for the link, warrenly. Good reading. :)

[Shake]

So, Bree, did you end up sticking to your guns and not voting?

If not, I hope you're happy with the results.

[Cool Hand]

So, Bree, did you end up sticking to your guns and not voting?

If not, I hope you're happy with the results.

Hmmm....Is it really any of our business or anyone else's whether Bree voted? I suppose it's OK to ask just out of friendly curiosity, especially since she brought up the topic in her OP, but your second sentence sounds to me like you're hinting that she bears some responsibility for the result.

In other words, to me, it sounds like a guilt trip. If that's what you are doing, it's not fair, and it's not very nice. If that isn't your intent, then please disregard my post.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

In other words, to me, it sounds like a guilt trip. If that's what you are doing, it's not fair, and it's not very nice.
Personally I think a guilt trip in this situation is entirely fair. Anyone who could have voted but didn't should feel guilty.

[Cool Hand]

In other words, to me, it sounds like a guilt trip. If that's what you are doing, it's not fair, and it's not very nice.
Personally I think a guilt trip in this situation is entirely fair. Anyone who could have voted but didn't should feel guilty.

Well, in the U.S. at least, having the right to vote also implies having the freedom not to vote. That's just as important, in my opinion, as being able to vote. There should be no guilt attached at all.

I see this as little different from the First Amendment's freedom to exercise one's religion and the prohibition on government's establishing a state religion, when taken together, implying a freedom to not observe or subscribe to any religion.

What does Bree have to feel guilty about if she didn't vote? Not voting can be a statement itself. I fully support anyone's right not to vote.

Cool Hand

[Dingfod]

I do too. In fact, I wish about 4 or 5 million voters of a certain bent had stayed away from the polling places as well.

/me backs out of the room


But, if wishes were fishes, we'd all have a fry.

[Shake]

Well, since Bree started the topic of not voting, and we're on ... what? page 9 now ... there's been a lot of discussion (of which I can't say I've followed every word), so I was just wondering if she'd been swayed or not.

I'm not trying to say the result is her responsibility, but I do feel that lack of participation negates the right to complain about any results. Silence implies consent, IMO.

So again, since Bree opened the discussion in the first place, I think we do have a right to know if she voted. I don't care to know, if she did vote, which particular candidates she selected. That's a personal matter, which she could share if she felt like it.

[beyelzu]

just a little reminder: when I talk about the doomed, the scum, the people who no longer give a shit, the people who look away from the pain in the streets, the people who don't care who runs the country... when I talk about he filth of the city... I'm talking about you.


spider jerusalem

tales of human waste

[ApostateAbe]

Bree's last post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=19060#post19060) came in the midst of the post-election rage. She was assaulted bukkake-style for her views. I doubt she will be coming back, but if she does, I would advise her to stay out of here.

[Shake]

Well that's too bad. I'd stayed away from this thread because I couldn't fathom someone giving up their right/privilege to vote whether their candidate was going to easily carry their state or not. As I believe I mentioned earlier, there were other races other than President being contested. I was hoping she'd have at least gotten out to vote for some of the local offices, which IMO, have more impact on immediate day-to-day living. Well, we'll see if she comes back.

[D. Scarlatti]

She was assaulted bukkake-style for her views.

Now there's an elegant turn of phrase.

What in tarnation would have conjured that evocative bon mot?

[Petra]

What's bukkake?

:eh?:

[Goliath]

What's bukkake?

:eh?:

It's a Japanese fetish (at least, I think it started in Japan)..anyways, it involves one woman and a lot of guys...um...unloading on her, so to speak <nudge, nudge, wink, wink>. :P

[ApostateAbe]

Bukkake is the Japanese sex practice of males blowing their loads on the faces of females. According to legend, it started when it was done as a public punishment for unfaithful wives. The convicted woman would be pilloried and the men in the town would cream her face. But, really, it probably started in the Japanes porn industry. They wanted to appear "hard-core," yet they couldn't show genitalia by law, so bukkake was born.

Bree has returned to post in the Food forum and the Arts forum. I hope you treat her more civilly.

[Petra]

Good lord, how do you people know this stuff?! :eek:


As for being civil to Bree in any thread bar this one - I am. And I've yet to see others being uncivil to her in any thread bar this one. Oh, and that other one about politics and voting an' stuff that was active at the time of Bush winning a second term.

I have respect for Bree in all areas except here - and I refuse to feign any respect for her in this issue. Just as I'm sure you'll refuse to feign any respect for me calling her a cunt over it.

See how that works? Simple, huh.

[D. Scarlatti]

Accordingly, I trust the bukkake metaphor will not reappear in the Food and Drink section.

[dave_a]

Accordingly, I trust the bukkake metaphor will not reappear in the Food and Drink section.

Well since 100% of the bukkake I have seen involves the woman consuming mass quantities of the stuff I think it is at least as appropriate to the food and drink forum as cream of mushroom soup is :P Or if you prefer asian cuisine then it would be the infamous cream of sum yung man soup.

[Petra]

lol.

I hear it's good for the skin, so perhaps it can go in the Lifestyle forum under a skincare thread.


Which reminds me, what was that guy's name again?...

[D. Scarlatti]

You mean the guy whose "old lady" still looks like a crack whore?

[Petra]

Yep. That's him.

:LMAO:

[livius drusus]

Wait, are y'all talking about JL or Solomon/OWO/Illuminati (http://www.iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=39&t=000279)? :hysteric:

[Petra]

Heheh. He was sumthin' else, wasn't he?

:muahaha:

[Goliath]

Oh man...that goes back to when I was more of a lurker than a poster at the IIDB....wasn't he the idiot who thought that babies should drink sperm to stay healthy or some such bullshit?

And I think I still remember how creepy that guy looked....

[Petra]

And I think I still remember how creepy that guy looked....

Calling freemonkey! Come in, freemonkey!

:chuckle:

[Shake]

Good lord, how do you people know this stuff?! :eek:
Well, in case you hadn't noticed, there's a lot of porn on the Internet.

[Blake]

Before this thread drifts hopelessly off-topic, I'd like to note that I disagree with Cool Hand, at least so far as this particular case is concerned. I have no respect for Bree not voting for President, on her justifications herein listed. I did have respect for a co-worker's reasons, who simply hadn't had time to receive enough information to make an intelligent choice. No problem there. But Bree, who smugly thought that her thorough overview culminating in a judgment of no difference at all between the candidates (which was 100% bloody wrong), does not get my respect. There are good reasons for not voting, but she did not supply any.

[Petra]

What gets me is that in the Gore/Bush contest, Iowa (iirc?) was won by only two votes per precinct, so it just goes to show how important each and every vote can be - and Bree is in a swing state.

[dave_a]

Before this thread drifts hopelessly off-topic, I'd like to note that I disagree with Cool Hand, at least so far as this particular case is concerned. I have no respect for Bree not voting for President, on her justifications herein listed. I did have respect for a co-worker's reasons, who simply hadn't had time to receive enough information to make an intelligent choice. No problem there. But Bree, who smugly thought that her thorough overview culminating in a judgment of no difference at all between the candidates (which was 100% bloody wrong), does not get my respect. There are good reasons for not voting, but she did not supply any.

I don't see any difference between Kerry and Bush in terms of how much I desire one over the other for president.

They do differ on some issues, but whether one is preferable over the other depends upon how one weights the issues.

I am not defending Bree's decision to not vote at all for any office, but I don't think Kerry is preferable to Bush according to my values. I voted for Kerry, but I felt dirty doing it and was considering not voting for president at all due to how disgusting I consider each of those men and the lack of an appealing (to me) 3rd party candidate.

When I hear folks proclaim how superior to Bush Kerry was I kind of roll my eyes in my head and wonder why people can't understand that we all differ in how we weight the issues. Both are corrupt, spoiled, rich beyond comprehension men accustomed to a life of privellege and status that rivals that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Neither has any clue how you and I live or what we deal with. Both speak on the items their advisors tell them to. They are both fake, sold out shells.

If you view the PR and buyers of one as better than the other so be it, but please tone down the hostility of those who aren't really motivated to support either shell.

[Petra]

They are both fake, sold out shells.

If you view the PR and buyers of one as better than the other so be it, but please tone down the hostility of those who aren't really motivated to support either shell.

Oh, well, I don't know why you Americans even bother with democracy at all, then. It's such a waste of time, money and effort!

[beyelzu]

They are both fake, sold out shells.

If you view the PR and buyers of one as better than the other so be it, but please tone down the hostility of those who aren't really motivated to support either shell.

Oh, well, I don't know why you Americans even bother with democracy at all, then. It's such a waste of time, money and effort!
I agree with your post.


and must say, I love the new avatar, where did you get it?

[dave_a]

They are both fake, sold out shells.

If you view the PR and buyers of one as better than the other so be it, but please tone down the hostility of those who aren't really motivated to support either shell.

Oh, well, I don't know why you Americans even bother with democracy at all, then. It's such a waste of time, money and effort!

At present it really is a waste of time and money. There is a two party system that has written laws to keep everyone else from even getting on the ballot. They have a monopoly on the media and as such they get far, far, far more airtime than anyone from a 3rd party. They are eligible for taxpayer funds while the 3rd parties are not. The winner takes all system makes anyone other than a dem or repub impossible to elect. In some cases electing a dem or a repub is impossible as only one party has any chance due to the winner takes all system.

I do agree, in some respects the democratic process in the US is expensive and a waste of time.

But along with the media complicity, the legal obsticles to 3rd parties and all that, we have the 2 main parties fielding candidates that meet the approval of those with the control/money. That means they are usually just different flavors of the same shit. I still want to know what exactly Kerry stood for.

Anyway, enough on this topic for me. My only point is that I thought Kerry was as tasty as a horse's ass. That made him slightly preferable to Bush, but voting for him still left an awful taste in my mouth. If my choice isn't any more clear in 08, I will probably just get an absentee ballot and vote for the state/local races and do something more meaningful on election day.

[Petra]

Thanks. :)

I found it on teh intaweb. :D

I was looking for a more Kiwi-influenced avatar (http://www.aotearoa.co.nz/), and found this arcrylic painting (http://www.aotearoa.co.nz/saker/gallery.htm) of parent and child. My new title "Aroha" is Maori for Love. :)

[beyelzu]

Thanks. :)

I found it on teh intaweb. :D

I was looking for a more Kiwi-influenced avatar (http://www.aotearoa.co.nz/), and found this arcrylic painting (http://www.aotearoa.co.nz/saker/gallery.htm) of parent and child. My new title "Aroha" is Maori for Love. :)
how much is 330 nz in real dollars :D

[Petra]

At present it really is a waste of time and money. There is a two party system that has written laws to keep everyone else from even getting on the ballot. They have a monopoly on the media and as such they get far, far, far more airtime than anyone from a 3rd party. They are eligible for taxpayer funds while the 3rd parties are not. The winner takes all system makes anyone other than a dem or repub impossible to elect. In some cases electing a dem or a repub is impossible as only one party has any chance due to the winner takes all system.

I do agree, in some respects the democratic process in the US is expensive and a waste of time.

But along with the media complicity, the legal obsticles to 3rd parties and all that, we have the 2 main parties fielding candidates that meet the approval of those with the control/money. That means they are usually just different flavors of the same shit.

How can it be changed? And it sure does need changing: You have one fucking awful system there!

I still want to know what exactly Kerry stood for.

Did you read his site? Did you do any homework on his history? Did you cross check facts and fictions from either camp regarding Kerry at FactCheck.org?

But anyway...it's all over now, and Kerry lost. I would have liked to have seen him get his chance to work the Presidency, but my wishes on the matter are even less relevant than those of US non-voters. C'est la vie. :shrug:

[Petra]

how much is 330 nz in real dollars :D

I think it's about $180 US, give or take. Go for it, dude! Support the arts! :cool:


:museum:

[beyelzu]

how much is 330 nz in real dollars :D

I think it's about $180 US, give or take. Go for it, dude! Support the arts! :cool:


:museum:
that isnt very much and it is definitely a cool painting.

[dave_a]

How can it be changed? And it sure does need changing: You have one fucking awful system there!

No idea, there are a lot of good ideas, but since they all have to pass muster with the status quo politicians they don't gain much traction.

Hell, we still subsidize sugar while considering taxing fattening foods higher. If that isn't a sad commentary on the state of US federal politics I don't know what is.


Did you read his site? Did you do any homework on his history? Did you cross check facts and fictions from either camp regarding Kerry at FactCheck.org?


Of course, I also watched the 3 debates. I still don't know what he stood for though. I know he would have been more pro choice on abortion than Bush and more anti gun. That's run of the mill for repub vs. dem here though on account of their financial backers. Beyond the obvious things like that I don't see the difference.

I voted for Bush in 2000 on the basis of what he said in the campaign. That taught me a very valuable lesson, never believe anything said in a campaign. The positions Bush took in 2000 are so far removed from how he has actually governed that it isn't even possible to compare the two, only contrast is possible.

[Goliath]

Of course, I also watched the 3 debates.

Did you?

I still don't know what he stood for though.

If you had bothered to spend 5-10 minutes listening to any of what Kerry had to say, you probably would've figured out what he stood for:

Health care for all Americans.
Bringing our allies into the war, rather than pushing them away.
Stopping the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.

Why didn't you bother to educate yourself on what he stood for? Or did you just (incorrectly) assume that he didn't stand for anything?

[Adam]

I still want to know what exactly Kerry stood for.

Can you be a little more specific with what you don't know about Kerry? I'm not sure I undersdtand your complaint, because saying that you don't know what he "stood for", to me, implies something along the lines of "I don't know what ideological/moral stances he promoted or defended", which seems sort of at odds with yoru previous assertion (which I agree with) that major party candidates don't really "stand for" anything in this sense; they're simply packaged bundles of positions that their backers think will fly with the voting public. In other words, if we;ve agreed that major parties generally don't field candidates who "stand for" anything in this sense, why does it bother you not to know what Kerry "stood for"? I may, of course, be misinterpreting your use of the words "stood for".

Personally, I don't look for candidates to stand for anything in that sense. Not only is it futile, but I'd rather a candidate not be a propoent of any particular ideology/moral standpoint/theory of government/whatever, simply because, chances are, I won't be a proponent of that same ideology/etc., and I don't want someone else's shit pushed on me. To me, the dangerous thing about Bush is that he does "stand for" things, and they're all things that repulse me. I'm sure that someone who voted for him would be equally repulsed by a candidate who "stood for" the things that I'd approve of. Bush is often prasied for having "moral clarity" but, in my experience, when A has so-called "moral clarity", B, C, D, and anyone else who gets in the way are in for a world of hurt. I much prefer policy wonk type candidates, who run on a platform of accomplishing certain things, rather than strong character type candidates, who run based on vague personal intangibles. Bush is a good example of the latter and, I think, Kerry's problem was that he tried to compete in Bush's court, with all the war hero crap, rather than by stressing his own abililty to get things done.

When you vote Dem or Rep in America, you're essentially voting for the party, not the candidate, anyway. I didn't vote for Kerry brecause I thought he would be a great leader; I voted for him because i tend to prefer the sorts of policies the Dems tend to enact over the sorts of policies the Reps tend to enact. Such is life in a two party system, I guess. I'm beginning to think that the only way that's going to change is if a third party runs a great grassroots campaign (for legislative offices, not executive) based solely on the idea that the two party system is broken and they intend to take enough power to change it.

[Petra]

I much prefer policy wonk type candidates, who run on a platform of accomplishing certain things, rather than strong character type candidates, who run based on vague personal intangibles.



Hear, hear, Adam!

Great post overall, too.

Cheers. :)

[Bella]

I didn't "waste" my vote, in the end (I guess). A Canadian friend asked me if she could "use" my vote and I let her :D.