There is good reason not to vote!

[Mr. Nostril]

I posted this in another thread, but it's burried deep, and was a bit off topic. I figured I'd start a new thread, so I get people's responses.

Over recent years, it seems like at least(probably more) 70% of voters are nowhere near satisfied with any of the top candidates in any election. Yet people insist that you have to get out there and vote for "the lesser of two evils." I disagree with this.

In an election on a national or even statewide scale, one individual vote doesn't matter. If you doubt this claim ask yourself a question, "If I had not voted in the most recent election I voted in, what would be different now?" If you look at an election realistically, when you vote, you aren't really helping the candidate win or preventing him from losing, you're just saying "Hey, I support this guy."

So, the question is, why would you vote for someone you don't ultimately support? I think there is a better chance of politicians realizing that Americans are not happy with them and making a change if a higher percentage just didn't vote unless there was a candidate they believed in.

For this reason I didn't vote in the most recent presidential election. I had a belief on who was the worst of the two, but I didn't think either was good. I'm not throwing my hat in with them. I refuse to make any apologies for this. I think that the people who are voting in spite of the fact that they don't believe in the candidates need to quit making excuses, and not vote.

[chomerics]

There is NEVER a good reason not to vote, as evident by the past two elections.

[WallyVon]

This is a dumb thread.

[Mr. Nostril]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that since after 9 hours, no one has seen fit to argue against me, no one has a good argument.

I'm surprised this garnered less response. I expected outrage from most, but was hoping I could get at least one person to see the light. If you don't care for a candidate, don't vote for him/her. If you don't care for any candidate, don't vote for anyone.

[WallyVon]

There is always a good candidate. You can make a valid argument against necessarily voting for a candidate from one of the two big parties. But you should always vote, if not for a big party candidate, then for some thir party candidate.

If all else fails, vote for yourself.

[chomerics]

Mr Nostril. . . You wouldn't happen to be Spiff's girl who didn't want him to vote now would you?:laugh:

I can now say I've seen everything. . . 2 threads on the tailgate about NOT voting :laugh:

[Mr. S]

ehh, i didnt vote in the recent governor election. I just did not really care enough overall, even though I prolly should. I did vote for the presidential election, on a lesser of two evils view. I will probably vote in the interim elections next year. Overall though, I do agree that for some people, voting just does not matter to them based on the candidates running. Voting 3rd party in this country seems rather pointless cause most people are split on democrat/republican and would not consider a third party. On top of that, it just takes votes away from a major party candidate who you may also like.

[gbear]

Those people that don't vote for a third party because the third parties never get enough votes miss the irony. They are contributing to the problem.

We get many things and freedoms as a result of being citizens. There comes with this a responcibility to learn about issues (you can pick which ones are important), and to try and make this country better. You can make the country better by picking the canidates that will best address you particular issues.

What angers me lately is the demonizing of the other parties. In truth, most of the values are the same. It's just an issue of prioritization. Pick those who share your oppinion of what is most important.

[Prosperity]

Why would we support a system that has given us the likes of Jimmy Carter, not one but two Bushes, and the income tax?

[gbear]

Because if you don't you will get more of the same.

[Larry]

Re: Third parties, I remember a story I'd heard.

There were two people, Tom and Dick. Neither Tom nor Dick liked either of the two "big" candidates in an upcomming election. Both of them, frankly, preferred a "third" candidate, who "everybody knew" couldn't win.

Tom decided to vote for Candidate 1, who, while he wasn't the candidate he wanted, at least wasn't as bad as Candidate 2. Candidate 1 won the election, and Tom got an officeholder that he didn't like, but he'd voted for, anyway.

Dick voted for the third candidate, who got 4% of the vote. Dick also wound up with Candidate 1 as his officeholder.

Candidate 1 took office, announcing that his victory clearly indicates a mandate from the people to impliment his agenda.

The question is: Which voter "wasted" his vote?

[Burgold]

I remember the Perot election. Didn't win, but got enough votes that it really pressured the agenda and forced those elected to deal with the issues he brought up.

[BlueTalon]

Over recent years, it seems like at least(probably more) 70% of voters are nowhere near satisfied with any of the top candidates in any election. Yet people insist that you have to get out there and vote for "the lesser of two evils." I disagree with this.

In an election on a national or even statewide scale, one individual vote doesn't matter. If you doubt this claim ask yourself a question, "If I had not voted in the most recent election I voted in, what would be different now?" If you look at an election realistically, when you vote, you aren't really helping the candidate win or preventing him from losing, you're just saying "Hey, I support this guy."

So, the question is, why would you vote for someone you don't ultimately support? I think there is a better chance of politicians realizing that Americans are not happy with them and making a change if a higher percentage just didn't vote unless there was a candidate they believed in.

For this reason I didn't vote in the most recent presidential election. I had a belief on who was the worst of the two, but I didn't think either was good. I'm not throwing my hat in with them. I refuse to make any apologies for this. I think that the people who are voting in spite of the fact that they don't believe in the candidates need to quit making excuses, and not vote.

Your final conclusion is reasonable, but the premises you base it on are wrong.

First of all, individual votes do matter. Had 1000 Floridians stayed home or voted differently in 2000, we'd have #44 in office right now (Gore would have been one-and-out IMO). The margin was less than that for Washington State's Senator in 2000, and a whole lot less than that for Washington's Governor last year. The difference there ended up being something like 129 votes.

Therefore, your question "If I had not voted in the most recent election I voted in, what would be different now?" is NOT rhetorical. In effect, the individual vote is not merely 1/2,000,000 of the total, but 1/1000 or 1/129 of the difference. Or 1/500 & 1/65, when you consider the swing effect of a changed vote.

Finally, no politician who wins office is going to acknowledge any illigitimacy based on low voter turnout. So no matter how many people stay home, the message you (they) want to send will never get sent. It simply gives more deciding power to other people's votes.

[Riggo-toni]

There's plenty of reason not to vote for Dems or GOPers, but that doesn't equate to not voting. Nearly all significant change has come from 3rd parties. 3rd parties don't have to win the election in order to change the political landscape; they simply have to collect enough votes to persuade one of the other parties to adopt their agenda in order to grab enough of the next election to win. No way would we have had balanced budgets in the 90s if it hadn't been for Perot's candidacy. Likewise, Wallace's racist campaign encouraged Nixon to push law and order to the forefront of his campaigns as part of his southern strategy. Liberal Democrats can trace their roots back to William Jennings Bryant and the Populist party.

Nowadays, the 2 parties are nearly identical on everything except social issues, most of which have already been decided by the courts anyway. Both are for massive spending and big government. W and the GOP congress are increasing expenditures at record rates, and the biggest complaint from Dems is, unbelievably, that they're not spending enough. This is why I vote Libertarian.

[stwasm]

While I strongly believe that there's never a good reason to vote, I will say that the mockery of the 2000 election where Bush's cousin helped him win would turn off a lot of people to the process.

[Prosperity]

Because if you don't you will get more of the same.

I don't know there is always anarchy

[mjah]

I'm going to go ahead and assume that since after 9 hours, no one has seen fit to argue against me, no one has a good argument.

The International Irony Society has a gold medal for you.

I think silver went to the guy who started a thread about combating pollution by refusing to breathe.

[airborneskins]

I don't know there is always anarchy

:doh: I will act as though I did not read this..

:sucks:

[Mr. Nostril]

Your final conclusion is reasonable, but the premises you base it on are wrong.

First of all, individual votes do matter. Had 1000 Floridians stayed home or voted differently in 2000, we'd have #44 in office right now (Gore would have been one-and-out IMO). The margin was less than that for Washington State's Senator in 2000, and a whole lot less than that for Washington's Governor last year. The difference there ended up being something like 129 votes.

You see the 2000 election is a perfect example why individual votes don't matter. Either there is a clear and decisive winner, and nothing changes if any individual voter stays home. Or the election is close and judges randomly decide a winner.

For those who make a case for 3rd party, I agree with you. I have voted 3rd party before. As a matter of the '04 presidential election is the only election I was eligible for that I didn't vote. However, only once have I voted for a major candidate, and the only reason I voted for him was that I was still young and hadn't fully formed my voting ethic. That vote probably would have gone 3rd party if I had done it now. Basically, the way I see it, with maybe a very rare exception, I will either not vote at all, or vote 3rd party. I'm not going to show up and vote for Mickey Mouse or something like that.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I don't know there is always anarchy

c.f. Lebanon circa 1985, Nigeria, Somalia

[Prosperity]

c.f. Lebanon circa 1985, Nigeria, Somalia

I don't know there is always enlightened despotism.

Now I have to figure out how to overthrow the US government and rule the country.

[i wonder how many lists I just got put on... :shutup: ]

[Thiebear]

I voted for Potts.. I didn't wish to but I want a 3rd/4th/5th choice.

I will vote Libertarian the next election.

It WILL eventually catch on and ***** slap the current candidates into doing what their supposed to.

I am very upset with my Bush vote... will get over it, but you should ALWAYS vote.

YOU are the reason my candidate won't get matching funds...

[Ancalagon the Black]

I don't know there is always enlightened despotism.

Now I have to figure out how to overthrow the US government and rule the country.

Liberty the Great? I dunno...can you beat Civilization on "Deity" mode?

[Mr. S]

may as well vote 3rd party next time if that is the party I agree with the most. I do commend Perot for getting that many votes, I hope someone can do it more successfully than him soon.