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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bree

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.

Originally Posted by Gawen

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]

Originally Posted by John the Non-Baptist

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]

Originally Posted by Blake

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

[dave_a]

Originally Posted by Bree

[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]

Originally Posted by 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:

Originally Posted by dantonac

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:

Originally Posted by dantonac

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

Originally Posted by Blake

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.

Originally Posted by Blake

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."

Originally Posted by Blake

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.

Originally Posted by dantonac

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.


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.

[John the Non-Baptist]

Originally Posted by Gawen

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]

Originally Posted by lunachick

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]

Originally Posted by 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

[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 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 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=Gawen]

Originally Posted by 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:

Originally Posted by dantonac

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:

Originally Posted by dantonac

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.

Originally Posted by lunachick

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]

Originally Posted by Bree

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]

Originally Posted by lisarea

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]

Originally Posted by Gawen

Well ya see. It's statements like this...coupled with statements like this:

...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:

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."

Originally Posted by Bree

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

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.

[Roland98]

Originally Posted by Bree

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,:

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."

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by 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.

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