The Right to Vote

[Chaossaber314]

Yes, I think the way to "fix" the problem of low voter turnout is to restore confidence in the system and produce candidates worth voting for. Not force people to vote.

[Osborn F Enready]

As I said.

It is your right to vote, or not.

I simply don't understand where there is any logic in not voting.

There is a system in place that gives you a voice. What message is sent when that voice sits silently? Has it EVER compelled change in the last 200+ years, because that is how long some of the electorate has been silent?

Those of you who don't think voting is as much a responsibility as a right, should really try to spell out your logic for those of us who find it lacking, if you wish to have respect for your actions as a method of protest, or whatever you call it.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: kiFF To start, I think all schools should require atleast one full year of US Government/Politics. I come from New Jersey, and such a class was not even heard of, but when I moved to Florida, it was a required course to graduate from high school. Not until taking this class did I start to become politically informed, I had no idea what a republican or a democrat was, etc. I think if more schools offered it students classes like this we may eventually have a more informed public. And a more informed public will put pressure on politicians, and we will really be able to get things done.

I took the class in high school, another class in jr. high that covered the subject, and numerous "social studies" classes in elementary school that covered the subject of US government. I have run for office 4 times and been very active in politics throughout much of my life.

I still don't really know the difference between republicans and democrats.

As to what is taught in government schools, we pretty much teach everyone 12 years of US government. It mostly goes along the lines of government is good, government will take care of you, I'm from the government, I'm here to help you, trust the government, government is your friend, you don't have to worry about it because the government will.

With no real difference between tax and spend republicans and spend and tax democrats, why should voters turn out? What's in it for them when all we'll see between any of the "major" candidates will be a slight change in the direction of where the taxes come from and where the money will be spent? Perhaps the republicans will spend a bit more on the military and a bit less on welfare. Perhaps the democrats will spend a bit less on the military and a bit more on education. Neither of them will STOP spending money on anything. Both will spend a lot of money on the military. Both will spend a lot of money on welfare. Both will spend a lot of money on education. All with no results that benefit our society, but if you refuse to pay your share, they'll spend money on guns to come to your home to collect what they consider theirs.

Without some real options for change, it is not surprising at all that we are apathetic about voting. As has been said, if voting made a difference, it would be illegal.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready As I said. It is your right to vote, or not. I simply don't understand where there is any logic in not voting. There is a system in place that gives you a voice. What message is sent when that voice sits silently? Has it EVER compelled change in the last 200+ years, because that is how long some of the electorate has been silent?

Well, we'll get it right out front, that I do vote.

However, I would counter the argument that "if you don't vote you have no right to complain" (which I know you didn't explicitly make, this isn't being attributed directly to you Os) with "if you do vote, especially if you vote for a "front running major party endorsed candidate", you have no right to complain".

In the last election, for example, if you voted for George Bush or John Kerry, you have endorsed the idea that whichever one of those candidates is selected has the right and the power to make decisions for the entire country. Even if your candidate didn't win, you agreed that whoever did win would be our "leader". If that "leader" does something with which you disagree, it doesn't matter, because you agreed to follow the "leader" that was selected.

By voting you forfeit your right to complain about which "leader" was selected.

Or, at least, that is a strong and somewhat convincing argument to me.

Keith