My stance on voting

GoldenBear

Banned
Mar 2, 2000
6,843
2
0
The American democratic system as it stands is so hopelessly corrupted by dirty politics and bland personalities that the cynical Generation X knows without even being told that their vote is meaningless. A vote for Al Gore is the same as a vote for George Bush because they're essentially the same person with a couple of quirks as mandated by their party line. What choice is there? Who gets to pick the candidates for president, anyway? Why, other politicians, of course. Did anyone ask the voters if they even WANTED Al Gore as the person on the ballot? Cliches like "every vote counts" are blissfully ignorant of the fact that you can flip a coin and get roughly the same results because there's only a 50/50 choice anyway.

The message has been hammered into the heads of the youth of America countless times already: The president is there to serve the whims of big business and special interest groups, not the voters. So why vote? What difference does your vote make, anyway? Given the general ennui of the American public towards both candidates this year, for instance, the only true difference a vote can make is towards a third party, but because of the restrictions placed on campaign funds and TV time placed on anyone not named "Democrat" or "Republican", there hasn't been a third-party president since, what, the 1800s?

So basically what you're left with is an ultra-cynical political system that condescendingly offers voters freedom of choice where no choice actually exists, and then holds no accountability for anything said or promised by the candidates during the election. So what exactly are the young people of America supposed to be voting for? It's one liar or the other, and once they're in there, god help you if want to actually hold them to responsibility for their actions like everyone else on earth.

Further, let's say you're a minority youth. Right off the bat you know that your interests aren't gonna be represented, because every President since Kennedy has been an old white man. So one is the same as the other for you, anyway. There's no choice there.

What about the ridiculously high percentage of people in America who live below the poverty line? What's the point of voting for them, since every government program since World War II has only served to increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots and give those who were born into money more opportunity to use it to influence the political system to their own needs? How is the one poor vote equal to the one rich vote? What's fair about that?

And how about if one candidate gets a 51% majority and the other gets 49%? The 49% have not only wasted their vote on a losing candidate, but now half the country voted AGAINST the sitting president. That's one of the inherant flaws with the two-party system that no one seems eager to address, because that's the way it's always been done before.
 

IBhacknU

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,855
0
0


<< every President since Kennedy has been an old white man >>

I thought Clinton was young... at least as far as Presidents go.

Both Gore and Bush are young, again, compared to the norm.

Sorry Golden Bear... I know your message has more meaning than this... but my shallow mind can't address all those issues.
 

GoldenBear

Banned
Mar 2, 2000
6,843
2
0
All those guys are in their early 50's, which, as you say, is young for a PRESIDENT. Do they give a crap about the issues of a 20 year old? One of the main arguments deals with social security and such deals with guess what, OLD PEOPLE. You may say that a 20 year old will eventually care about this in 20-30 years down the line, but hey, everything's going to be changed by then anyway with that president.

So I would say it makes more sense for you NOT to vote, then maybe, possibly, they could change the dated voting system.
 

Dameon

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
2,117
1
0
If you hate the system, prove it and vote 3rd party. If you truly hate the two-party system, do something to break it instead of uphold it and bend over to get screwed by it again.

If you don't do something about it and just want to sit there and use &quot;disenchantment&quot; and &quot;disenfranchisement&quot; as excuses to cover laziness, so be it.... just don't get mad when the pres screws up, because you did nothing.

Doing nothing is how christians were persecuted.
Doing nothing is how Nazis came to power.
Doing nothing allows evil to fester and take control.

Do nothing and that's what you'll be left with... nothing.

Vote third party, because the system is screwed, and both parties refuse to fix it.
 

Napalm381

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,724
0
0


<< What's the point of voting for them, since every government program since World War II has only served to increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots and give those who were born into money more opportunity to use it to influence the political system to their own needs? >>

Account for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Earned Income Tax Credit, welfare, and food stamps. How exactly do these serve to increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots? Also, national defense has little, if anything to do with the haves OR have-nots. Yet these entitlements account for significant portion of federal budget. If I remember correctly, SS is THE largest single government expenditure.

So how much did Ralph Nader pay you to post your little diatribe here?
 

GoldenBear

Banned
Mar 2, 2000
6,843
2
0
I make my stance by not voting. That way, as I said, possibly they can ratify the system, that's it.

Plus I'm only 16, so...
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0


<< One of the main arguments deals with social security and such deals with guess what, OLD PEOPLE. >>



You should take the time to actually look at the plans. Bush specifically addresses the needs of young people by proposing the opportunity for them to opt out of a disastrous Ponzi scheme that returns a fifth of what could be achieved through private investment.

It is Bore who is pandering to &quot;old people&quot; as you call them.

Russ, NCNE
 

kranky

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
21,019
156
106
&quot;where no choice actually exists&quot; ?

I don't like to be cynical, but indulge me for a minute. Your post would certainly please the &quot;establishment&quot; if it indeed is the way you characterized it. Give up! Let the power bosses run the show, and you uninterested people just stay at home. That's just as good as if you weren't ALLOWED to vote! But if someone said &quot;don't let people under 40 vote&quot; you would all scream bloody murder.

Every damn citizen is allowed to vote in private for WHATEVER candidate he/she chooses. You slam the Democrats/Republicans because they get out there and work for their candidates. The disinterested voters sit at home and work on their ass groove. If people just knew the power they have in the voting booth...

That's right, just keep thinking your vote doesn't count. The professionals know how to get voters to the polls. You disenchanted people are screwing yourselves. There's Ralph Nader running, but people end up saying he can't win, so why bother. That's exactly why a third-party candidate won't get anywhere.

Everyone wants better choices, everyone complains about the power establishment controlling the process. But it's because the people in power work at running for office, campaigning for candidates, and getting people to the polls. Sure, there's corruption, but what's stopping an honest person from running for office? Only the fact that there's not enough OTHER PEOPLE who will step up and work for people like that.
 

GoldenBear

Banned
Mar 2, 2000
6,843
2
0
So you're saying by the time I get to the age where it actually matters, and assuming Bush is voted, it'll stay?
 

Napalm381

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,724
0
0


<< Do they give a crap about the issues of a 20 year old? One of the main arguments deals with social security and such deals with guess what, OLD PEOPLE. >>

Nonsense. Do you pay social security taxes out of your paycheck? I bet you do. The next president will probably enact measures that will affect the levels of these taxes, and potentially allow you to keep some of these funds for your own investment. Social Security policies apply to anybody who pays taxes, not just those who collect the payments.
 

kranky

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
21,019
156
106
Thank you, zucchini, for proving my point.

If Nader could pull just 15% of the vote, you would see some changes. Both &quot;big&quot; parties would realize that if that 15% was on their side, they'd be winning elections. So you'd see both parties pandering to the people who voted for Nader.

The people who stay home? There's no reason to worry about them! They didn't vote.
 

Dameon

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
2,117
1
0
Why do you think the parties ARE cartering to old people??! They GET OUT AND VOTE in droves and masses! More than labor unions and lesbian neo-nazi transsexual eskimos.
 

Russ

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
21,093
3
0
Clearly, no third party candidate has a prayer of winning. But, as Kranky points out, when they have a good showing, the major parties take notice. Much of what has been formulated in the parties over the years has been adopted from third party philosophy and incorporated in to the platform. So, it does have an impact.

The democrats are a perfect example. Most of their platform was lifted from the socialist party of the 1920's.

Russ, NCNE
 

Napalm381

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,724
0
0
From Gallup:
Thought Being Given to the Election by Age and Gender (Registered Voters, October 26-28)
Percent responding &quot;Quite a Lot&quot;:

18-29 59 percent

30-49 69 percent

50-64 79 percent

65+ 80 percent


And you wonder why the candidates pander to the older voters?
 

IBhacknU

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,855
0
0
I'm thinking that if Clint Eastwood, or some other well known celebrity/sports star/actor ran 3rd party they'd get more votes than Nader or Buchanan.
 

Zucchini

Banned
Dec 10, 1999
4,601
0
0
The problem is even 3rd party candidates are a joke:p Look at what we have now, nader and buchanen. Nader runs for the green party which has some really really absurd points in its platform. Nader doesn't clear up his stance on many issues including foriegn policy. He'd rather you fill in the blanks. He doesn't seem like presidential material. Buchanen.. ugh well anyone knows whats wrong with him. The 3rd party arguement is pretty pointless until they get an awsome candidate.
 

KingHam

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,670
0
0
I hate to break it to you but, the framers of the Constitution purposely made it difficult to get radicals elected. The reason that they did this is because radicalism is inherently unstable. As long as the system stays the way it is (and the way it should be) we will continue to get candidates that aren't really interested in changing much. As others have stated if you have an issue that you want changed then support a third party and if others agree with you then at least one of the major parties will absorb that issue into their platform.

If I were you I would check out The Libertarian Party Homepage or Harry Browne's Homepage.

KingHam
 

ICyourNipple

Member
Oct 9, 2000
173
0
0
if you don't like the system vote 3rd party. harry browne is my candidate of choice. if he doesn't get elected, oh well. you don't vote for the person you think is going to win, the whole idea of voting is to pick the candidate that best represents your views and values.
 

jpsj82

Senior member
Oct 30, 2000
958
0
0
If you don't like the government don't vote for eith bush or Gore. Vote for Nadar whoo is running from a third party. This will change the government system more than a vote for bush or Gore. Remember every vote counts, at least every vote in the electroal college counts.
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
<not supporting any candidate outright at this time>

It is your obligation as a citizen of the United States to participate in any election pertaining to you.
Don't be an ass. Vote. What's a government for the people if it doesn't know what the people want?

</not supporting any candidate outright at this time>




Now don't go off on me on how the government doesn't actually care about the people, how they misuse money, etc. I don't care to hear it. I just put in my two cents about voting.