I refuse to vote...

[dank69]

I'll play your little hypothetical game.I would have voted to legalize it. So it wouldnt have changed anything. But you also have to remember what you are descirbing is a popular vote system. The presidential election is not a popular vote system..it should be though.

You understand that you know the tallies before your vote, right? You know that if you vote for decriminalization it will be decriminalized and if you vote for legalization it will stay crimilized, and yet you would still vote for legalize out of 'principle'?

 

[palehorse]

Know much about the electoral college and how various states divvy up their electoral votes?

Hint: If every state divided their electoral votes proportionally based on their state's popular vote results, you might have a point. However, since most states use an "all or nothing" approach, your point rings hollow to a large extent.

Yep.

The EC is FUBAR. I seriously cannot fathom how/why some states still get away with anything other than a split of votes proportional to their popular vote. That simple problem essentially destroys the entire Presidential voting system, and absolutely nullifies many individual voters in this country. There's simply no excuse for it... yet here we are -- a neutered populace.

 

[-Slacker-]

It's time for a voting system without "party" affiliations. They sell out to one side or the other.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Nebor]

Let me try to explain it to you a different way. Suppose there is a vote coming up in your state on legalization of pot. The three options are fully legalize, decriminalize posession or continue with current criminalization. Whichever option get the most votes will be set into law. Everyone but you has voted and the tallies thus far are 10% for legalization, 45% for decriminalization and 45% for criminalization. Now, in a perfect world, you want full legalization. Decriminalization and criminalization have exactly the same number of votes and if the end result is a tie, criminalization stays in force. What do you do?

Not vote. 1 vote won't decide the issue, and I don't care either way.

 

[dank69]

Not vote. 1 vote won't decide the issue, and I don't care either way.

If you don't care about this specific issue then why chime in? You don't even understand the situation since you say 1 vote won't decide the issue...

 

[feralkid]

If enough people voted third party, you could see some actual change instead of the usual political BS.

Yes, because anyone in a third party is automatically immune from corruption.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Yes, because anyone in a third party is automatically immune from corruption.

They are if they never get elected...

See, SEE??!?!?!

 

[feralkid]

They are if they never get elected...

See, SEE??!?!?!

 

[ibex333]

I hate it when people say that by not voting, I make others make the decision for me. While that may be true, consider the fact that I don't want to vote because all candidates are idiots, I would rather Arnold Schwarzenegger be president...(even though I don't want him to be).

So then my question is, what am I supposed to do if I strongly believe that none of the candidates should be president, and if any one of them was elected, it would be the end of this country?

So yes, others will be electing the next president, but I really wish I could stop them from doing so. Too bad I don't have that capability.

 

[dank69]

I hate it when people say that by not voting, I make others make the decision for me. While that may be true, consider the fact that I don't want to vote because all candidates are idiots, I would rather Arnold Schwarzenegger be president...(even though I don't want him to be).

So then my question is, what am I supposed to do if I strongly believe that none of the candidates should be president, and if any one of them was elected, it would be the end of this country?

So yes, others will be electing the next president, but I really wish I could stop them from doing so. Too bad I don't have that capability.

Make a list of every issue the top 2 candidates ever voted on and compare them line by line to how you would have voted on each issue. I guarantee one will more closely align with you than the other.

 

[bfdd]

Make a list of every issue the top 2 candidates ever voted on and compare them line by line to how you would have voted on each issue. I guarantee one will more closely align with you than the other.

and if neither of them meet my standards? what then? the most i can do is tell others how fucking stupid they are for perpetuating the system while trying to share other information i have as to what might help change it. voting for R or D is a vote for status quo, the candidate doesn't matter.

 

[dank69]

and if neither of them meet my standards? what then? the most i can do is tell others how fucking stupid they are for perpetuating the system while trying to share other information i have as to what might help change it. voting for R or D is a vote for status quo, the candidate doesn't matter.

What's your fucking standard? Perfection? My way or the highway?

I notice you still haven't answered my question from before. Why is that?

 

[palehorse]

What's your fucking standard? Perfection? My way or the highway?

I notice you still haven't answered my question from before. Why is that?

I can't speak for bfdd; but, I know what my standard is -- a human being of upstanding moral character.

Sadly, with that as my measure, NONE of the leading candidates qualify... 🙁

 

[werepossum]

I can't speak for bfdd; but, I know what my standard is -- a human being of upstanding moral character.

Sadly, with that as my measure, NONE of the leading candidates qualify... 🙁

I agree, that is important. I have no problem morally though with Romney, or Huntsman, or Johnson, or for that matter with Obama. Moral character on the others I judge as a mark against them, but not necessarily a fatal one.

 

[dank69]

I can't speak for bfdd; but, I know what my standard is -- a human being of upstanding moral character.

Sadly, with that as my measure, NONE of the leading candidates qualify... 🙁

So if someone was campaigning on striking down the 1st and 2nd amendments, and was slightly leading in the polls, you wouldn't get your ass down to the booth and vote for the other guy?

 

[palehorse]

So if someone was campaigning on striking down the 1st and 2nd amendments, and was slightly leading in the polls, you wouldn't get your ass down to the booth and vote for the other guy?

I absolutely would! However, I'm not one of the posters here who claimed he wouldn't. If and when I feel it's necessary, I'll certainly vote AGAINST a potentially dangerous candidate.

Eventually, though, with something as dramatic and dangerous as your example, I'd take up arms to defend those rights against whoever threatens them...

 

[mattpegher]

I can seriously agree with everyone here, even though we all have different oppinions about voting, the nature of the presidential election process is such that there is no right answer.
It is highly unlikely that any candidate wont sell out the american populace for the next corporate sponsor.
Unfortunately the electoral college makes many peoples votes moot (Ie, I live in NJ, if I vote Dem, i am an unneccessary voice in a croud, or if I vote Rep, I cant be heard, my vote really doest count for anything).
No 3rd party candidate has a chance in hell of winning so voting for a 3rd party is taking away a vote from the one you dislike least.
Not voting does the same.
Voting for either is an illusion that you have changed anything, because both parties are just pawns of corporations, and reelection.
Both parties pander to the most radical fringe because they are afraid to lose their voter base.

So no answer is correct. If you feel you must-vote, if you feel you cant -dont.

 

[bfdd]

So if someone was campaigning on striking down the 1st and 2nd amendments, and was slightly leading in the polls, you wouldn't get your ass down to the booth and vote for the other guy?

I wouldn't have to vote for the other guy. This is what I'm talking about when I say "other forms of voting" and "taking up arms". Someone does that, I'll just get my gun and try to solve it myself. I'd rather be dead than live in a world I disapprove of.

Also, dank I'm sorry for ignoring your question that wasn't my intention. Can you please show me the post so I can answer?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Interesting take and I think you should checkout Dylan Ratigan's show he has some really interesting solutions to fix the horrible state American Politics are currently in.

There are many potential solutions for reformation however the problem is that those who would be harmed by change are those who have to give their permission to have them come about to begin with. It's a vexing situation. Let's take this coming Presidential election. Suppose one does not want a Republican candidate to win. A third party option? Not really because no one but a Republican or Democrat can win. Now suppose one objects to a candidate who is quite comfortable with expanding wiretaps without warrants or approves of arresting citizens without Constitutional rights? Obama certainly fits that description. In fact I'm sure that you are aware of his expansion of what Bush began. So what then? A Democratic Presidential alternative to Obama? You know the party is going to get behind him and push because what is important is to make sure the sitting President runs effectively unchallenged. Do you think that's a good thing for people who want a choice? Let's be honest there is no option and that's by design. Great for the party, not so good for the people. Note this situation would apply if it were the Republicans in office. This is not as it should be.

 

[dank69]

I wouldn't have to vote for the other guy. This is what I'm talking about when I say "other forms of voting" and "taking up arms". Someone does that, I'll just get my gun and try to solve it myself. I'd rather be dead than live in a world I disapprove of.

Also, dank I'm sorry for ignoring your question that wasn't my intention. Can you please show me the post so I can answer?

Post 93 which I think you answered in your own way but I asked for clarification in 97.

 

[cubby1223]

So your a quitter? You don't like the options so you will let somebody else elect the next congress and President?

Way to show off your obviously superior higher-thinking skills!

 

[cubby1223]

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 chose not to vote in the Bush / Gore election. Say I did choose to vote in the election, and vote for your preferred candidate.

In my state, the election that was decided by a vote of 2,589,026 to 2,019,421 as an Al Gore victory, would have, with my vote added in, Gore wins 2,589,027 to 2,019,421.

If I had voted for Bush, the tallies would have been Gore 2,589,026 Bush 2,019,422.

Where exactly did I put democracy at risk? The outcome of the election would have been exactly the same regardless if I did not vote, if I voted for Bush, if I voted for Gore, if I had voted for Nader, Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin, Phillips, or a write-in candidate.

 

[Zorkorist]

There is very little to vote for.

At some point you have to say Government is, what it is.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Right to keep and bear arms
Conditions for quarters of soldiers
Right of search and seizure regulated
Provisons concerning prosecution
Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
Right to a trial by jury
Excessive bail, cruel punishment
Rule of construction of Constitution
Rights of the States under Constitution

-John

 

[cybrsage]

I chose not to vote in the Bush / Gore election. Say I did choose to vote in the election, and vote for your preferred candidate.

In my state, the election that was decided by a vote of 2,589,026 to 2,019,421 as an Al Gore victory, would have, with my vote added in, Gore wins 2,589,027 to 2,019,421.

If I had voted for Bush, the tallies would have been Gore 2,589,026 Bush 2,019,422.

Where exactly did I put democracy at risk? The outcome of the election would have been exactly the same regardless if I did not vote, if I voted for Bush, if I voted for Gore, if I had voted for Nader, Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin, Phillips, or a write-in candidate.

Let us say an additional 570,000 Gore votes are as defeatest thinking as you are. Bush takes the state.

When you do not vote, you are telling everyone you think you are worthless, meaningless, and your views should be ignored.

Your voice may be just a whisper, but combined together we make a might shout.