I refuse to vote...

[cubby1223]

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

Please give me one example when your choosing to vote affected the outcome of an election.

 

[cubby1223]

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.

Okay, in your situation, now Bush won 2,019,422 to 2,019,026, or a difference of 316.

Amongst the set of voting possibilities, the set of outcomes is either, Bush wins by 315, Bush wins by 316, or Bush wins by 317.

My vote still doesn't make a difference.

 

[cubby1223]

If I voted, I would tend to vote Republican much more than Democrat.

Therefore, Craig234 & Ausm should be thanking me for not participating in Democracy!

You're welcome!

 

[cybrsage]

Okay, in your situation, now Bush won 2,019,422 to 2,019,026, or a difference of 316.

Amongst the set of voting possibilities, the set of outcomes is either, Bush wins by 315, Bush wins by 316, or Bush wins by 317.

My vote still doesn't make a difference.

Way to completely ignore what I said.

You know, you are right. You should not vote. The system is better without your input.

 

[soulcougher73]

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.

The problem with this kind of thinking is you always take it all the way to the extreme. Yeah im sure if you grabbed an additional 570,000 people who didnt vote and told them to they would have all voted for Gore. Most likely you are going to get 50/50 thus no gain anywhere.

That is why we need straight popular vote as a country for the president. Then no matter where you lived your vote would count. As it is now with the fucked up EC depending where you live may depend wether you bother voting or not. A dem in KS is a wasted vote under current EC. A rep in NY is a wasted vote under current EC.

You guys want to tackle the problem start talking about getting rid of the EC and you may get more voters.

 

[cybrsage]

Turnout (2008 Presidential Election)
The voter turnout for this election was broadly predicted to be high by American standards,[199][200][201] and a record number of votes were cast.[202] The final tally of total votes counted was 131.3 million, compared to 122.3 million in 2004 (which also boasted the highest record since 1968, after which the voting age was lowered to 18). Expressed as a percentage of eligible voters, 131.2 million votes could reflect a turnout as high as 63.0% of eligible voters, which would be the highest since 1960.[203][204] This 63.0% turnout rate is based on an estimated eligible voter population of 208,323,000.[204] Another estimate puts the eligible voter population at 212,720,027, resulting in a turnout rate of 61.7%, which would be the highest turnout rate since 1968.[205]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Turnout

91 MILLION people did not vote. If half of them would have voted for Gore, and half of that number actually bothered to vote, Gore would have won by a landslide.

It is not a far fetched thing I mentioned. Not voting says "I am worthless, useless, and my opinion should be ignored". In that election, it caused Bush to win. Anyone who was too much a loser to vote in that election, but complained that Bush won, can only blame themselves. They could have changed it, but were too lame to do it.

 

[cybrsage]

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.

The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the consitution but is decided by the states.

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Turnout

91 MILLION people did not vote. If half of them would have voted for Gore, and half of that number actually bothered to vote, Gore would have won by a landslide.

It is not a far fetched thing I mentioned. Not voting says "I am worthless, useless, and my opinion should be ignored". In that election, it caused Bush to win. Anyone who was too much a loser to vote in that election, but complained that Bush won, can only blame themselves. They could have changed it, but were too lame to do it.

I'm not sure why you pointedly ignore the real issue. You are given a choice of who to vote for. There are precisely two candidates who have any chance of winning. Those have been approved by the party leadership and their allies before anyone voted. Tell me this, what choice would anyone have besides GWB for President from the Republican side his second term? How about Obama and the Dems now? A few years ago there was a grass roots movements for Howard Dean. The political machine pushed Kerry, the "good old boy". Guess who came out on top.

Cling to your illusion of choice if you must, but don't tell anyone else they have no right to complain because it's an illusion.

 

[cybrsage]

There are only two viable candidates because millions of people all individually say this is so. If even only half of those who say this actually went and voted for a third party candidate, things would change.

People who complain about only having two choices and never actually voting for a third party are the reason we only have two choices.

EDIT: "Be the change that you want to see in the world." - Gandhi

 

[soulcougher73]

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states. The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states. While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the consitution but is decided by the states.

That is a good first step and like 3 states have done so. But if all states did that you may as well just do away with the EC completely since it would not be needed since it would act the same as straight popular vote would. Thus popular vote is the only way to go to make sure everyones voice no matter where you live is heard equally.

Its a myth that more populous states would have more pull than smaller states.1 vote is 1 vote no matter where you live. Its not like EVERYONE in NYC is a dem..there are a lot of rep there that dont vote because they know it doesnt matter in our current system. Their vote would matter in straight popular vote.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There are only two viable candidates because millions of people all individually say this is so. If even only half of those who say this actually went and voted for a third party candidate, things would change.

People who complain about only having two choices and never actually voting for a third party are the reason we only have two choices.

EDIT: "Be the change that you want to see in the world." - Gandhi

Not even close.

In the real world there are two parties with power and they have no intention of changing. The dominant thinking is "I don't like Candidate A nor B, but B is a little better. Now there is a Candidate C. Ok I can pick him. What happens if I do? He'll lose of course. He hasn't the political support. In every election since Teddy Roosevelt it was either a Dem or Rep who wins and even then the "bull moose" party is really a historical curiosity. So if I vote for other than A or B I could have saved gas and stayed at home. I don't like A as much so B is who I go for."

What happens if C were to present a serious challenge? The next time around people would remember that their choice pulled votes away from one candidate or another and absolutely nothing changed as a result.

You want to blame people who don't vote but you again pointedly ignore the facts that the system guarantees that either a Dem or Rep will hold office with rare exceptions, and in that case there will be limited support in government. So we have Progressives who laud Obama who is in fact perfectly content to strip people of their Constitutional rights and detain them perpetually without charge or legal representation. Or maybe Romney will win backed by Conservatives who under no circumstances consider Mitt one of theirs. Still it's not Obama, so the lesser devil wins.

The solution to this would be a Constitutional amendment dealing with these issues. Call up your Democrat or Republican representative telling them that's what you want and get back to us on how that goes.

Even Uncle Tom knew he was a slave.

 

[Nebor]

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...

I think I understand your scenario perfectly well. Unless you're saying I KNOW for a fact that my one single vote will decide the election. In which case, my vote would likely go to the highest bidder. Although, since I'm some kinda swami motherfucker, I'd probably have won enough lotteries by that point not to care about money.

 

[Nebor]

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?

Nope.

 

[dank69]

I think I understand your scenario perfectly well. Unless you're saying I KNOW for a fact that my one single vote will decide the election. In which case, my vote would likely go to the highest bidder. Although, since I'm some kinda swami motherfucker, I'd probably have won enough lotteries by that point not to care about money.

That's exactly what I was saying, so no, you didn't understand the scenario at all. I didn't say it was a realistic situation. It was a question designed to determine how someone would act in a specific type of situation. You are the first to give a specific answer. It's nice you can admit you are a greedy piece of shit though. Let's tailor the specific situation further, just for you. Everything remains the same and the new additional condition is that nobody is offering you a cent to vote either way. Do you vote or not? If you do vote, what do you vote for?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nope.

Here is a case where I would. My primary concern is that the government follows the Constitution as intended. If one party were to overtly attempt to do away with parts of the Bill of Rights I'd do what was needed to prevent that. Is this hypothetical going to happen? No it is not.

 

[Nebor]

That's exactly what I was saying, so no, you didn't understand the scenario at all. I didn't say it was a realistic situation. It was a question designed to determine how someone would act in a specific type of situation. You are the first to give a specific answer. It's nice you can admit you are a greedy piece of shit though. Let's tailor the specific situation further, just for you. Everything remains the same and the new additional condition is that nobody is offering you a cent to vote either way. Do you vote or not? If you do vote, what do you vote for?

No. There's virtually no situation in which I'd vote that I can think of. Votes are basically worthless. That could be improved by switching to a popular vote for the presidency and changing the way districts are handled for electing legislatures, but if those changes were on a ballot, I probably still wouldn't go vote.

 

[Nebor]

Here is a case where I would. My primary concern is that the government follows the Constitution as intended. If one party were to overtly attempt to do away with parts of the Bill of Rights I'd do what was needed to prevent that. Is this hypothetical going to happen? No it is not.

I'm more of a go with the flow kinda guy. I have such an intense disinterest in government and governing that nothing is going to sway me to waste my time voting. If I felt I were oppressed beyond the point that I felt was tolerable, I'd be more likely to participate in a rebellion or insurgency than vote. Though realistically I'd be more likely to be part of the oppressing actions than merely a victim.

 

[dank69]

No. There's virtually no situation in which I'd vote that I can think of. Votes are basically worthless. That could be improved by switching to a popular vote for the presidency and changing the way districts are handled for electing legislatures, but if those changes were on a ballot, I probably still wouldn't go vote.

Which is why I put together a fictional situation to see how you would act when your vote does count. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

 

[Nebor]

Which is why I put together a fictional situation to see how you would act when your vote does count. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Like I said, if there were nothing to gain on my part, I wouldn't vote. I have no feelings or convictions on the issue, so I'd prefer to have no part in making a decision that will rule the lives of others.

 

[dank69]

Like I said, if there were nothing to gain on my part, I wouldn't vote. I have no feelings or convictions on the issue, so I'd prefer to have no part in making a decision that will rule the lives of others.

Nothing wrong with that if marijuana laws do not apply to you.

 

[cybrsage]

That is a good first step and like 3 states have done so. But if all states did that you may as well just do away with the EC completely since it would not be needed since it would act the same as straight popular vote would. Thus popular vote is the only way to go to make sure everyones voice no matter where you live is heard equally.

Doing it by voting district or county would be a good way to go.

Its a myth that more populous states would have more pull than smaller states.1 vote is 1 vote no matter where you live. Its not like EVERYONE in NYC is a dem..there are a lot of rep there that dont vote because they know it doesnt matter in our current system. Their vote would matter in straight popular vote.

When they set it up it was important. Not so much anymore.

 

[cybrsage]

Not even close.

In the real world there are two parties with power and they have no intention of changing. The dominant thinking is "I don't like Candidate A nor B, but B is a little better. Now there is a Candidate C. Ok I can pick him. What happens if I do? He'll lose of course. He hasn't the political support. In every election since Teddy Roosevelt it was either a Dem or Rep who wins and even then the "bull moose" party is really a historical curiosity. So if I vote for other than A or B I could have saved gas and stayed at home. I don't like A as much so B is who I go for."

What happens if C were to present a serious challenge? The next time around people would remember that their choice pulled votes away from one candidate or another and absolutely nothing changed as a result.

And it people like you who think this way that ensures it stays this way. You have created a self fulfilling prophesy.

You want to blame people who don't vote but you again pointedly ignore the facts that the system guarantees that either a Dem or Rep will hold office with rare exceptions, and in that case there will be limited support in government. So we have Progressives who laud Obama who is in fact perfectly content to strip people of their Constitutional rights and detain them perpetually without charge or legal representation. Or maybe Romney will win backed by Conservatives who under no circumstances consider Mitt one of theirs. Still it's not Obama, so the lesser devil wins.

No, if enough people voted for a non D or R, that person would be elected. It is how the sytsem works.

The solution to this would be a Constitutional amendment dealing with these issues. Call up your Democrat or Republican representative telling them that's what you want and get back to us on how that goes.

A constitutional amendment which forces everyone to vote? No, I would rather those who feel their views are worthless, meaningless, and extremely unimportant to stay away from voting.

 

[Nebor]

And it people like you who think this way that ensures it stays this way. You have created a self fulfilling prophesy.



No, if enough people voted for a non D or R, that person would be elected. It is how the sytsem works.



A constitutional amendment which forces everyone to vote? No, I would rather those who feel their views are worthless, meaningless, and extremely unimportant to stay away from voting.

Then why do you keep asking for third party supporters to come out and vote? :biggrin:

 

[Shyatic]

And it people like you who think this way that ensures it stays this way. You have created a self fulfilling prophesy.



No, if enough people voted for a non D or R, that person would be elected. It is how the sytsem works.



A constitutional amendment which forces everyone to vote? No, I would rather those who feel their views are worthless, meaningless, and extremely unimportant to stay away from voting.

Wow, this post went kinda nuts, eh?

Anyway, as far as third party candidates.... it's kind of a locked game. The states have certain balloting requirements and in a federal election (weird) they are all different, and it's EXTREMELY difficult to get on the ballot in every state. Unless of course, your state is owned by a political party, one way or another.

This is the problem with our system. I won't vote for D/R because frankly they both are the same thing. They don't do anything worthwhile for the citizens, and in the last 30 some years of my life, I can barely recall one reasonably good thing that has come from their reign. It's all half-assed attempts to appease small groups of people to get their votes. But a third party getting in there to rouse people up? I think that's needed in our political system. I think at this point (sadly) the closest thing we have to it is Ron Paul, which while I don't agree with a LOT of what he says, I have reasonable amount of belief that he wouldn't bow down to what the mainstream Republicans say to him, and he'll run his own ship.

Sometimes you need a bit of a crazy person in there to shake it all up, because we are going down the crapper, and fast. SOPA is only the beginning.

 

[cybrsage]

Then why do you keep asking for third party supporters to come out and vote? :biggrin:

I was trying to explain why those who do not vote are wrong in their thinking. I am learning that their desire to make themselves feel useless and worthless is far stronger than I ever imagined.