I refuse to vote...

[PrinceofWands]

I almost never vote D or R. Only when one of those two is truly evil incarnate with a chance to win (like W), then I vote for the opposition. Or the rare occasion when one pops up that I actually like or think would be a good idea (like Ron Paul, to break the status quo). Otherwise I keep it independent to break up the two-party stranglehold that has utterly destroyed this nation.

 

[werepossum]

I didn't say I wouldn't vote for them. Just not D/Rs.

Understood. My point was to vote, even though your candidate has absolutely no chance of winning.

 

[lord_emperor]

This is why I hate the electoral systems used in North America.

Last Election in Canada the Green party took 11% of the popular vote but got just 1/308 seats. It's demonstrably impossible for a 3rd (or 4th as it stands in Canada) party to gain power.

 

[Nebor]

Your vote doesn't matter anyway, it's a waste of time. Your time would be better spent doing virtually anything else, unless you just get an enormous amount of personal satisfaction for voting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In the vast majority of cases voting is pointless anymore. You get to pick who you want to be enslaved to. I'll pass.

 

[xj0hnx]

Your option is to do your best to keep the worst one out. Not voting for the second worst candidate is a vote for the worst candidate.

Seriously, with an attitude like that, all hope for this country is lost. It's fucking disgusting that today most people are voting against someone rather than for someone, it's pathetic.

 

[werepossum]

In the vast majority of cases voting is pointless anymore. You get to pick who you want to be enslaved to. I'll pass.

But you get to piss off one of the major parties! (Arguably both, but I doubt the winning party gives a damn about your third party vote.)

I think voting is a civic duty anyway.

 

[ericlp]

Way to go OP. You'd have to be retarded to NOT know that voting R/D is voting for the same puppet loser.

Matter of fact I'd say you were an idiot if you voted for a D or R. Yep, A frigen moron ... Either vote third party or do us all a favor and go home and don't vote.

I love it when tards on here scream and cry and say your wasting your vote, well, if these idiots knew that the Majority of the voting public is the "NO" vote, that ought to tell you something right there! Reason why the "NO" votes WIN every time? It's because the american public isn't that stupid. They know that there is NO ONE worth voting for. Sure, maybe 3-5% might have not voted because they wound up sick or in the hospital and physically not able to vote but even if you did take away 5% of the votes, the "NO" vote would still win by a land slide! I'm sick of the R/D debate and I'm even more sick of choice between the two evils. It's the Evil vs. Stupid.

Witch brings us to the choice of WHO do we vote for if were not gonna vote for D/R? Hmmmm Good question!

Voting is not a civic DUTY it's a RIGHT, and with in your right you have choice to vote for whoever or even NO vote.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think voting is a civic duty anyway.

I think it's the duty of those running elections to provide us with real choices rather than clones who pass a predetermined litmus test. The point of our system was to make those who lead responsive to the citizen but we've come so far from the original intent of our founding principles that the notion of our leaders being servants is considered quaint or obsolete. Those in power will keep themselves there and that's apparently how it's supposed to be.

What duty can be expected of any citizen under these terms? I think that it would be more useful to undermine the system in place by no one voting for those who they are told they must choose. I'd find it most amusing for someone to throw an election and no one come.

 

[Schadenfroh]

But if you don't vote or if you vote write-in, your basically casting a vote for _______!

 

[werepossum]

I think it's the duty of those running elections to provide us with real choices rather than clones who pass a predetermined litmus test. The point of our system was to make those who lead responsive to the citizen but we've come so far from the original intent of our founding principles that the notion of our leaders being servants is considered quaint or obsolete. Those in power will keep themselves there and that's apparently how it's supposed to be.

What duty can be expected of any citizen under these terms? I think that it would be more useful to undermine the system in place by no one voting for those who they are told they must choose. I'd find it most amusing for someone to throw an election and no one come.

Two interesting concepts are adding a spot for "None of the above" and setting a threshold below which the top two candidates automatically run off. Another is a ranked system, selecting your top three or four candidates by rank. Either would shake up our system, although there would doubtless be unintended consequences. There always are.

 

[Siddhartha]

For a Republican, or a Democrat.

They are a political party, and in that, they put the party before people. I'd rather vote for a monkey that throws poop, because at least I know what he stands for (poop throwing).

With a D/R candidate, they can say whatever they want, but then they have to step back in line to do the bidding of their party so all their friends get re-elected.

Thoughts?

Instead of complaining about the political system how about actually doing something? Get involved in the political process. Run for office and or support a candidate with your time and money.

 

[Craig234]

Way to go OP. You'd have to be retarded to NOT know that voting R/D is voting for the same puppet loser.

Matter of fact I'd say you were an idiot if you voted for a D or R. Yep, A frigen moron ... Either vote third party or do us all a favor and go home and don't vote.

I love it when tards on here scream and cry and say your wasting your vote, well, if these idiots knew that the Majority of the voting public is the "NO" vote, that ought to tell you something right there! Reason why the "NO" votes WIN every time? It's because the american public isn't that stupid. They know that there is NO ONE worth voting for. Sure, maybe 3-5% might have not voted because they wound up sick or in the hospital and physically not able to vote but even if you did take away 5% of the votes, the "NO" vote would still win by a land slide! I'm sick of the R/D debate and I'm even more sick of choice between the two evils. It's the Evil vs. Stupid.

Witch brings us to the choice of WHO do we vote for if were not gonna vote for D/R? Hmmmm Good question!

Voting is not a civic DUTY it's a RIGHT, and with in your right you have choice to vote for whoever or even NO vote.

That'll help. Each election, you go on 'making your point' not voting. Of course, the election and the power that goes with it will all go to R or D, and you will have no say.

They don't mind that. They sure prefer it to you voting for the other party. You are making each voter more powerful by throwing your away.

If 99% of the people take your advice, then each election you can say "wow, what a good point we made! 99% voted no! what a useful point!' and the 1% will decide the outcome.

Fact is, the big money in the elections from the few richest donors is very corrupting. There's a reason in 2008 94% of races were won by the candidate with the most money.

There are useful things to do: support a consittutional amendment that money isn't speech, corporations are not people. Support ranked voting to give voters more choices.

In the meantime, you get two votes, usually one of which matters a little: in the primary for the D or R nominee (the one that might matter more), and the general election.

But if you throw away your vote, you stop valuing it; and that opens the door for the powerful interests to buy you off to take away the vote you don't value altogether.

And that's when they get REAL power, reversing the founding fathers creating a democracy to give each citizen a vote. Is that what you want?

If not, why not, since you are for throwing it away?

Save234

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Seriously, with an attitude like that, all hope for this country is lost. It's fucking disgusting that today most people are voting against someone rather than for someone, it's pathetic.

This.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Craig234]

This.

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

So, you get the greater of two evils.

As I said above, people like you are going to devalue democracy - and put it at risk.

There's plenty - again as I said above - for you to push for to improve elections, but in the meantime, the lesser of two evils is an important choice. Bush v. Gore mattered.

 

[Ausm]

So, you get the greater of two evils.

As I said above, people like you are going to devalue democracy - and put it at risk.

There's plenty - again as I said above - for you to push for to improve elections, but in the meantime, the lesser of two evils is an important choice. Bush v. Gore mattered.

I agree and I can't believe people don't understand this basic concept.

 

[xj0hnx]

So, you get the greater of two evils.

As I said above, people like you are going to devalue democracy - and put it at risk.

There's plenty - again as I said above - for you to push for to improve elections, but in the meantime, the lesser of two evils is an important choice. Bush v. Gore mattered.

The problem with people like you is that you think there is a greater, or lesser evil, and according to everything you post here it's solely based on a letter.

 

[Craig234]

I agree and I can't believe people don't understand this basic concept.

I have some understanding of it - they view anything attached to a political group as 'corrupt' and sort of mindlessly supporting a group, and value their 'independence'.

But they fail to understand that, like the jail inmate who doesn't like the idea of joining the gang of his race, that that 'independence' can be very expensive and leave them powerless and trashed by the people who do organize, as organizing is power; and they fail to understand some of the better things that can be done with an organized group.

They'll look at a lot of things and praise them - say, the civil rights advances - but not appreciate how essential the political process of organizing was to their happening.

Without that organizing, we could easily still have segregation today.

Political operatives love the 'independent' as easy to manipulate; and the 'independent' who throws away their vote serves the interests who buy the other votes quite nicely.

You can go to an occupy protest and say "man, I really don't like these people", and want to leave - and then remember the cause you are united with them for and that leaving is to leave the problems without the people trying to improve them, and you get a lot more tolerant of the people and appreciate their effort. "Politics makes strange bedfellows" I think was said hundreds of years ago about this, because of the fact that these alliances are very important. If they want the luxury of not having them - they lose out.

And in fact, the special interests who do organize sometimes love to encourage this 'love of independence' and hatred of political groups, because it serves their own interests.

You don't see people like Karl Rove hating political organization - because he uses it to have great influence in elections, for evil in his case.

Fact is, these organizations are basically necessary because the 'other side' you disagree with is going to organize - so you can also or let them win.

It's a bit like corporations who love to attack 'socialism' if it's for you, but are thrilled to have it if it's for them.

People need to get over that repulsion to parties - and instead try to fight the bad things they see in parties and make them better.

Joining a party and supporting it does not mean you cannot disagree with it or that you have to be 'corrupt' and support it 'right or wrong'.

John Kennedy once said, faced with the demands of Democratic operatives as a candidate: "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much." Right is more important than party.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So, you get the greater of two evils.

Two sides of the same coin.

As I said above, people like you are going to devalue democracy - and put it at risk.

If I am not mistaken, you're the person who has repeatedly said that you should vote for one of the two major parties. Oh, heck, who am I fooling? You want everyone to vote Democrat. Who is devaluing democracy? You remind me of someone -- was it Henry Ford? -- who said something to the effect of:

"You can order the Model T in any color you want, as long as it is black."

My vote wouldn't have mattered in Bush vs. Gore because my state went for Bush by a good margin and I would not have voted for Gore regardless.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I agree and I can't believe people don't understand this basic concept.

You guys are the ones that don't understand the concept. How would my vote have mattered in Bush vs. Gore? The state solidly went for Bush and there is no way I would've voted for Gore. You guys do understand the concept of the electoral college, right?

R vs. D is like heads vs. tails. Both are beholden to special interests and corporations and only the naive among us (ie, you and Craig) would think otherwise. If Ron Paul runs and could actually get a large enough following to register a significant percentage of the vote, I'd vote for him as a protest vote. But that isn't happening.

 

[Craig234]

You guys are the ones that don't understand the concept. How would my vote have mattered in Bush vs. Gore? The state solidly went for Bush and there is no way I would've voted for Gore. You guys do understand the concept of the electoral college, right?

R vs. D is like heads vs. tails.

If you have an agenda that's so radical for the country that the differences between Bush and Gore are unimportant, and you view Gore as horrible, you have that right.

But it does leave you a radical to be that far from the mainstream candidates, who is unlikely to get much you want, like anarchists or communists.

Do you even know your agenda, other than throwing spitwads at the two main parties, beyond some childish utopia like radical anti-government Liberatarians?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If you have an agenda that's so radical for the country that the differences between Bush and Gore are unimportant, and you view Gore as horrible, you have that right.

But it does leave you a radical to be that far from the mainstream candidates, who is unlikely to get much you want, like anarchists or communists.

Bush winning, especially in 2004, was more a commentary on the awful Democrat candidate(s) than on his record. We're seeing the same thing this year, but with the Republicans. I believe Obama will win but not because he has done an outstanding job -- it will be because the Republican candidates suck. (NOTE to Spidey: Perry WILL NOT be your next president!")

Do you even know your agenda, other than throwing spitwads at the two main parties, beyond some childish utopia like radical anti-government Liberatarians?

True fiscal conservatism is the most important factor for me. Neither party has shown that (even though both talk the talk). I care about my country and want it to be strong for centuries to come and I want to leave it in better shape for generations to come. I'm tired of gridlock and the childish behavior of politicians.

Ron Paul is too radical for me as well, but he has some good points and I'd vote for him just to avoid voting R or D.

 

[Craig234]

Two sides of the same coin.

That's a meaningless metaphor, leaving you more a parrot than a citizen.

There are differences between the parties. Just to use Bush and Gore, they included starting a war against Iraq or not doing so (admittedly a debatable issue - Gore leaving Saddam in power had its downsides); Bush's adding hundreds of billions to the deficit to even further reduce the taxaes on the wealthy and increased the concentration of wealth, while Gore supported not doing so and having a 'lockbox' against the government spending the Social Security trust fund; Gore's taking steps to reduce global climate change, etc.

The 'coin' has nothing to do with the many differences; you simply don't care about those issues, which is not that they aren't there.

So, you might care about other issues - or just be an ostrich with your head in the sand.

If I am not mistaken, you're the person who has repeatedly said that you should vote for one of the two major parties.

That does oversimplify things; for example, I've supported ranked voting to help people be able to vote for a third party without 'throwing their vote away'.

Oh, heck, who am I fooling? You want everyone to vote Democrat. Who is devaluing democracy? You remind me of someone -- was it Henry Ford? -- who said something to the effect of:

"You can order the Model T in any color you want, as long as it is black."

Wrong again. I do support people voting for Democrats, which I think is in their interest generally, but that's not 'devaluing democracy'. I support the right of people to vote Republican or any other nutty agenda over their not having that right - that's supporting democracy, unlike you who says 'screw voting, it doesn't matter', devaluing it.

If I prefer a black Model T, that doesn't mean I don't support a wide variety of colors being available, unlike Ford, for others to have a choice.

Of course, the right and wrong in politics is not the same as color preference. My preferring, say, outlawing segregation isn't 'preferring a black car', no pun intended.

Except to you it is - you don't care about the political issues, equating the different 'sides'.

My vote wouldn't have mattered in Bush vs. Gore because my state went for Bush by a good margin and I would not have voted for Gore regardless.

Votes matter beyond just switching the result. No presidential election has been decided by one vote, but the votes matter (putting aside other issues, under 300 votes in Florida).

 

[Craig234]

So you're saying only radicals voted for Bush -- twice?

No, I'm saying that having an agenda about issues so different from the rest of country that Bush and Gore are 'the same' is a radical agenda.

True fiscal conservatism is the most important factor for me. Neither party has shown that (even though both talk the talk). I care about my country and want it to be strong for centuries to come and I want to leave it in better shape for generations to come. I'm tired of gridlock and the childish behavior of politicians.

So why are you a hypocrite about fiscal conservatism when it comes to Bush adding hundreds of billions - trillions over years - the debt to make the rich richer lowering their taxes even more, something Gore would not have done, since you say there is 'no difference you care about between them'? I could cite other examples of differences involving large amounts of 'fiscal conservatism', but the point is made - YOU 'talk the talk' but don't walk the walk, ignoring the differences so you can sit on a pedestal.

You haven't convinced me you actually have any coherent agenda, just a nice label "fiscal conservative" with no substance.

What does your agenda actually have for policies - not just a name? What would you have the nation actually do, that's so different trillions of dollars in R vs. D don't matter?

Ron Paul is too radical for me as well, but he has some good points and I'd vote for him just to avoid voting R or D.

Showing some irrationality, voting for bad policy for no justification shown.

With your 'logic', why not be willing to vote for Hitler 'just to not vote R or D', even though you 'don't agree with him'? You don't make the case R and D are worse than Ron Paul.

If you did make that case, fine, vote for him. Instead you have only put up nonsense about the differences between R and D not mattering. But you'll vote for worse policies.

 

[palehorse]

^^^I believe his point has something to do with every R or D candidate lacking integrity, lacking convictions, and being beholden to SIGs, rather than to average Americans. From that perspective, all of them can, and should, be considered "the same."

On the flipside, candidates like Ron Paul -- and maybe one or two others in National politics -- appear to have an over-abundance of integrity and personal convictions, while also managing to avoid being bought and paid for by SIGs.

Sadly, Ron Paul's agenda is too radical for most, including myself, to accept as a whole -- regardless of his upstanding moral character.

So, at the end of the day, we're guaranteed to end up with one of the two morally bankrupt evils...