I don't vote. Why would I?

[SoylentGreen]

Thus spoke Voluntary.
But to be fair if its true that only 64% of the american people voted in the last presidential elections,
US Census Press Releases
then there is a possibility that Voluntary is not the only american on volconvo who does not vote. So for all of you.

1. Because if you do not exercise your right to vote then your political opinions are nothing more than so much hot air.

2. In a country where a president can be elected with only 64% of the voters then not voting is not "making a statement" it's just being ignored.

3. When Bush or any president makes one of there usual bad decisions you can't say "not my fault I didn't vote for him", You didn't vote so your as much to blame for him being there as those who voted for him.

4. There are more effective ways of making political changes than sticking your head in the sand and refusing to participate in your one chance to make a difference..

[Jack]

But where's the value in a "lesser-of-two-evils" vote? If you vote for someone who you don't feel would be a good president but simply the best bad choice of the bunch, how does that benefit the election process? Who gets elected is less important than how much they're influenced and by whom. Who owns the candidate?

I have been relieved of my voting privilege by the legal system, so I'm not especially biased for or against it.

But I suspect the vote has more symbolic importance than any real substantial affect on the outcome of an election. We don't really pick the candidates and we don't really select the president. Having influence is more productive than voting.

[SoylentGreen]

=Jack;506726]But where's the value in a "lesser-of-two-evils" vote? If you vote for someone who you don't feel would be a good president but simply the best bad choice of the bunch, how does that benefit the election process? Who gets elected is less important than how much they're influenced and by whom. Who owns the candidate?

I count 53 parties , not two
Politics1 - Guide to American Political Parties

And an effective way to use the vote which has been tried successfully in England an New Zealand was the creation of the party of clowns, known in England as the Monster Raving Loony Party and in NZ as Mcgillicutty serious party. Both parties send a very direct message to politicians
If your going to behave like clowns then we might as well vote in a bunch of clowns.
Nothing makes a politician stand up and take notice as much as the possibility of losing an election.

I have been relieved of my voting privilege by the legal system, so I'm not especially biased for or against it.

If it's not to embarrassing can you explain to me how that works?

But I suspect the vote has more symbolic importance than any real substantial affect on the outcome of an election. We don't really pick the candidates and we don't really select the president. Having influence is more productive than voting.

Ok I give up I was working under the obviously silly impression that Americans not only had the right to vote but that it might mean something.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Jack But where's the value in a "lesser-of-two-evils" vote? If you vote for someone who you don't feel would be a good president but simply the best bad choice of the bunch, how does that benefit the election process? Who gets elected is less important than how much they're influenced and by whom. Who owns the candidate? I have been relieved of my voting privilege by the legal system, so I'm not especially biased for or against it. But I suspect the vote has more symbolic importance than any real substantial affect on the outcome of an election. We don't really pick the candidates and we don't really select the president. Having influence is more productive than voting.

Less of two evils? Would you rather drink a gallon of muddy water or a gallon of gasoline? If both candidates are bad... why wouldn't you vote for the better one?

[Voluntary]

Voting is a sanction of organized coercion. When you vote for a candidate, you are sending the message to politicians that your rights are in the hands of the political system (and majority rule). You legitimize the use of force by the state (through whatever political institution you are sanctioning by your vote). Not voting sends the message that you do not support the system.

[Hurt]

Quote by: Vacuum Less of two evils? Would you rather drink a gallon of muddy water or a gallon of gasoline? If both candidates are bad... why wouldn't you vote for the better one?

Uh, don't presidents require a minimum amount of votes regardless of what's the majority or minority? There's no such option in your analogy..

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Voluntary Voting is a sanction of organized coercion. When you vote for a candidate, you are sending the message to politicians that your rights are in the hands of the political system (and majority rule). You legitimize the use of force by the state (through whatever political institution you are sanctioning by your vote). Not voting sends the message that you do not support the system.

If you don't agree with our government, that is fine, but since you are forced to live under it (given that you stay here), wouldn't you want to make the best out of it?

[SoylentGreen]

VoluntaryNot voting sends the message that you do not support the system.

64% of the people voted , the views of 36% were ignored. Your message was only that there is 34% of the electorate that politicians can ignore.

Voting is a sanction of organized coercion.

excuse me but voting isn't even compulosory in your country. Unless your going with jack's view that voting isn't even part of the election system then what compulsion is there.
What other ways do you have of making your voice heard besides picking up a gun and shooting.

HurtUh, don't presidents require a minimum amount of votes regardless of what's the majority or minority? There's no such option in your analogy..

Good question if by " require a minimum amount of votes " you mean overall voting of the people. If a president can be voted in on only 64% of the people then can he be voted in by only 50% or 10%? Although completely improbable is it theoretically possible that even if only one person in america voted that vote still counts?

[Jack]

Quote by: Vacuum Less of two evils? Would you rather drink a gallon of muddy water or a gallon of gasoline? If both candidates are bad... why wouldn't you vote for the better one?

What I meant was that for many people, the "best" candidate is only the best among other really bad choices. Why should someone vote for a person they don't believe will be a good president but is simply the least corrupted, the least compromised of the bunch. And the bunch you're picking from has been determined by others, the voters having influence but not the primary influence. Losing the popular vote yet being elected wouldn't happen if the voters efforts counted for more.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Hurt Uh, don't presidents require a minimum amount of votes regardless of what's the majority or minority? There's no such option in your analogy..

My comparison was not intended to compare anything but this: if you are voting and have two options for president (one of which is 1 units of evil, and one of 2 units of evil), why wouldn't you choose the option with less units evil?

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Jack What I meant was that for many people, the "best" candidate is only the best among other really bad choices. Why should someone vote for a person they don't believe will be a good president but is simply the least corrupted, the least compromised of the bunch. And the bunch you're picking from has been determined by others, the voters having influence but not the primary influence. Losing the popular vote yet being elected wouldn't happen if the voters efforts counted for more.

I do agree with you; there is flaw in our electoral voting system. More people than you think feel the same way as you, and as a result, don't vote. If everyone voted that didn't vote, it would have some significance.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen 64% of the people voted , the views of 36% were ignored. Your message was only that there is 34% of the electorate that politicians can ignore.

I am not understanding you.

excuse me but voting isn't even compulosory in your country.

Why would it be compulsory? That would be frightening. The thought makes me sick to my stomach. Is voting compulsory in your country?

What other ways do you have of making your voice heard besides picking up a gun and shooting.

I don't own a gun. Last time I shot a gun was over ten years ago.

I try to inform my friends and family and online debaters about my stance on a very limited government. Guns don't force people into reason, only reason does that. I think it is very reasonable that the government is too big, too powerful, and too coercive.

[SoylentGreen]

VoluntaryI am not understanding you.

the president only got in with 64%, what happened to the 34% who did not vote. answer nothing.

Why would it be compulsory? That would be frightening. The thought makes me sick to my stomach. Is voting compulsory in your country?

yes its a small thing to ask isn't it ? that you actually pull your weight and vote once every 3 years.

I think it is very reasonable that the government is too big, too powerful, and too coercive.

and as long as you don't push to change it with the power of the vote then it will always be.

[Walrus]

I don’t know exactly how it works in the U.S. but over here I have always thought there should be a place for abstention on the ballot. This would allow the voter to register their abstention as a wilful act, in that he/she feels unrepresented, rather than it just being a matter of apathy or forgetfulness.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Walrus I don’t know exactly how it works in the U.S. but over here I have always thought there should be a place for abstention on the ballot. This would allow the voter to register their abstention as a wilful act, in that he/she feels unrepresented, rather than it just being a matter of apathy or forgetfulness.

That would be reaosnable, I suppose.
Of course, the options could be even broader. "None of the above" could also be an option. Also, one could be able to register a specific reason for not voting, or perhaps a general protest with the system (a singular reason for why you dislike it). These are pretty modest reforms, mostly even symbolic. But they would probably still be too much for the two party stranglehold.

Grandpa h.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: SoylentGreen the president only got in with 64%, what happened to the 34% who did not vote. answer nothing.

Again, I am not understanding you.

yes its a small thing to ask isn't it ? that you actually pull your weight and vote once every 3 years.

False analogy. Pulling "your weight" is not measured by voting.

and as long as you don't push to change it with the power of the vote then it will always be.

Voting is not the only way to accomplish change.

[Jack]

Voting is not the only way to accomplish change.

By the time the voting starts the chance for change is long past.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Jack By the time the voting starts the chance for change is long past.

Agreed.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Vacuum If you don't agree with our government, that is fine, but since you are forced to live under it (given that you stay here), wouldn't you want to make the best out of it?

Trying to "make the best out of it" only legitimizes a faulty claim on monopolistic force.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Voluntary I am trying to make the best out of it, by rationally limiting it. Trying to "make the best out of it" only legitimizes a faulty claim on monopolistic force.

If you had enough personal reason to leave, you would. Also, nobody can expect to live in a perfect nation.