My friends refuse to vote

[Wangel]

Going to lunch with a few friends, they told me that they will not be voting in the upcoming election. The reason they gave was:

1) Husband wants Democrats, wife wants Republicans, both decided not to vote since they will cancel out each other.

2) It doesn't matter because the elections are fixed

3) All politicians are crooks and will lie to get in office

4) If you look at the current people in office and compare what they did from their campaign promises, you will see that they also lied to get in office.

5) Power corrupts all

6) One vote doesn't matter, and has never made a difference

7) With all the bullsh*t the politicians are shoveling, especially against each other, how can you really tell what they stand for?

One fellow did say that he would vote for Mel Carnahan for governor in Missouri. (That is the fellow that died in a plane crash last week). He said that he would vote for him because then he couldn't be blamed for putting a crook in office.

 

[loogie]

Good.

 

[BoberFett]

Then tell them to vote Libertarian.

 

[Tripleshot]

It's a good thing we don't choose our friends based on thier politcal persuasions,Huh?

 

[ratkil]

In the words of the infamous Steve Earle, if you don't vote, don't bitch.......

 

[CliffC]

But Tripleshot it looks as if anyone should be able to be friends with any of these folks(except maybe the first 2).

There was no persuasions to any but the first 2.

 

[Tripleshot]

CliffC

Thats what I'm refering to. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

 

[Dedpuhl]

I don't vote because of many reasons listed above. I do believe that every vote counts but the government is too corrupt to properly work. I don't complain about who is in office because they equally suck. The ONLY vote I would ever give is to Jesse Ventura if he ever ran for office.

 

[kranky]

I am actually rethinking my position on non-voters. I'm starting to believe it's good.

If we can get half of the remaining voters to quit voting, then my vote will represent 8 people instead of the 4 that I currently represent. (Since half the eligible voters are registered, and only half of those vote, my vote represents 4 people).

That way the people who vote can have even more of a say in who wins. I don't want uninformed voters going to the polls.

Why don't people who are disillusioned vote for Nader? No cancelling out each other's votes, yet makes a statement that politics-as-usual needs to change. Imagine what would happen if Nader got even 15% of the votes!

Politicians are just like companies - they know one overt complaint (= voting for Nader) represents another hundred people who didn't bother to complain.

I will say that the "one vote doesn't make a difference" is the absolute lamest argument, though - because once you admit that hundreds or thousands (or millions) of people are saying the same thing, it is no longer valid.

 

[Tripleshot]

>>>Imagine what would happen if Nader got even 15% of the votes! <<<


Yep!


Bush would win the Presidency.


Vote for Gore and hold his feet to the fire on campaign finance reform, saving SS and Medicare,prescription drugs,increase minumum wage,and protect the environment by not drilling for oil in sensitive areas.





***Tripleshot ducks from the arrows of the extreme right***

 

[Wangel]

It is suggested that only 25% of the adult voting population is going to vote. This number has gone down steadily each election. Why? Because it doesn't matter who is in office. It's only a procedure that we became acustomed to. Do people really know who they are voting for? I don't think so. What is a better method? I would suggest, let the richest man in America be the president, then the next richest vice president. At least you know that he won't be stealing the country blind, he already has! Someone like Bill Gates. He knows how to deal with competition. It's the same in dealing with a foreign country. I say, let the rich run the country! They earned it, they deserve it!

 

[BoberFett]

<< Vote for Gore and hold his feet to the fire >>

Oh yeah, politicans are quite concerned with you and your petty problems once they've won the election.

 

[jjm]

I don't agree with it, but I would defend people making a choice not to vote.

That said, I also think it's weak to say one is not voting because one does not like the presidential choices. Fine, skip the presidential vote on the ballot, but there are lots of other offices and initiatives up for vote. These other races/issues deserve attention.

 

[Dameon]

1) Vote to show that your age group / demographic is voting. The reason all you hear about is social security / medicare / prescription drugs is because the geezers figured something out:
IF YOU CAN BE COUNTED ON TO SHOW UP AT THE POLLS, THE POLITICIANS WILL COWTOW TO YOU.

I will personally be going to vote for Harry Browne to show my hatred for both primary candidates, to vote try and get rid of our congressional representative, and to vote against a local light rail measure that is really friggin expensive.

2) The elections are not fixed. They are limited to only one more choice than Russia had becuase people buy into the two party system.

3) All the people that get into the major parties have so many favors they owe to people that yes they end up looking like crooks.

4) Overall, polticians keep over 60% of their promises overall. ( we have been heavily covering this issue in my arg. and advocacy course). The problem is that their changes are WELL publicized, or they are blamed when it cant go through due to outside interference. For example, a bill backed by the president that was part of his campaign is struck down as uncontitutional.
(line item veto for example) He made a dedicated effort to fulfill his promise.

5) That is why we must vote. When we do not exercise our power, they have nothing to fear.

6) COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSH!T. One vote makes a huge difference in local elections. And overall, local elections can affect your daily life much more. With thousands of people saying that, it adds up.

7) Vote 3rd party if you hate both the major candidates. MAKE THEM VIABLE. Voter turnout increases with a viable third party candidate. For instance, every election since 1960 voter turnout went DOWN except for 1992. Why? 1992 - Perot was a viable 3rd party candidate that was allowed into the debates. The next year when he was not &quot;viable&quot;, voter turnout continued it's downward trend.

Overall, people who don't vote are really doing it for one thing:
they are lazy.

They don't want to take the time to analyize what the politicians are saying. They dont want to take time to think deeply about the issues and weigh what is best for them against what is best for society overall. They don't want to think. They dont want to be bothered.

 

[Shazam]

If there was an option for &quot;none of the above&quot;, there would be a lot more voters

 

[Wangel]

I would respond to you, but it's coming up to 4:30 here and time to go home from work. Work? Oh yea, work. What am I doing here?

 

[Czar]

I hardly ever vote, thats just because I´m never happy with those who are running.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

I think both of the candidates suck (ie, not qualified) and I won't vote, but if I did it would be for Bush.

 

[The Wildcard]

It's sorta cool to vote, cuz like like it makes you feel you got some power. Sure, people are gonna say, whaat's my one single vote gonna do, well if everyone who said that voted, their cummaltaive vote would be a very strong force.