No. I am not going to vote.

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why?

1. The false sense that my vote is going to change something.
2. Legitimizing the two party system.


Neither do me or you any good.

Will you vote?

Not American.

But i will vote in English elections every single time.

Even if you're casting a blank vote, that helps more than just not voting at all.

 

[woolfe9999]

I agree that turnout is important, but this is about if I personally will vote or not.

Nah, if that's all this is about, you'd have just answered "no" to the poll and left it that. Yet for some reason, you keep trying to convince others not to vote and I'm not really sure why.

 

[woolfe9999]

Why not? Romney isn't going to appoint more conservative judges, if anything he's going to install more moderate ones. Need I remind you about Obama and his commitment to do away with many Patriot Act type laws only to strengthen them?

Romney was gov in MA when I was there, and he went with the public opinion. In the US, the sentiment is to allow Roe to stand, while on the other hand many say that if we have the explicit bill of rights, then anything the government does is legitimate. All it has to be is perceived as "general welfare" or ridiculous appeals to the commerce clause. You approve. I do not. I don't need or want an ever increasingly similar HAL type government that we seem to be headed towards. Yes I believe that Obama would like to see a lot more of that, more likely than Romney overturning Roe.

Like I said, ACA is already held Constitutional. Not only that, but Romney already passed the equivalent of it in MA. If you really want a limited government candidate, I agree Obama is not it, but neither is Romney. You might look into Gary Johnson.

 

[soulcougher73]

Like I said, ACA is already held Constitutional. Not only that, but Romney already passed the equivalent of it in MA. If you really want a limited government candidate, I agree Obama is not it, but neither is Romney. You might look into Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson would probably be the best for all your former republicans.

 

[Nebor]

I agree with others that voting is a waste of time unless it just makes you feel good. It makes me feel like I'm wasting my time, and lending credibility to a broken system.

Also, I don't feel like I'm well versed in the various political issues to make decisions regarding them, thus I don't feel qualified to select someone to make those decisions. I realize everyone on P&N has all the answers to all the problems, so I'm probably alone in feeling that way. I'd be happy to have some sort of tough, issues based test that had to be passed in order for people to be allowed to vote, that way only the knowledgeable people could vote. It'd eliminate the people who vote to get themselves more welfare or vote against the guy they think is going to take their guns.

 

[Balt]

Voting in my state/county is completely pointless.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like I said, ACA is already held Constitutional. Not only that, but Romney already passed the equivalent of it in MA. If you really want a limited government candidate, I agree Obama is not it, but neither is Romney. You might look into Gary Johnson.

No, we are stuck with the ACA, and Romney isn't going to change it, but even more the principle of a punishment tax to coerce whatever the government wishes. If it isn't the most egregious violation of the bill of rights then you obey or can be ruined. Only the lack will is our protection. Any appeal to the Constitution is pointless, as now the ruling is that the concept of the limited authority of the federal government is erased. Our rights are now the enumerated ones. To many that is how it should be. I disagree.

Then we have a third candidate who has no chance. Even if he did he doesn't represent my ideals. He too is "act now, think later". His solution? Cut funding without regard to how best to improve things.

We both know the punishment tax and the ACA is staying. We also know that so is Roe.

No, IMO the only thing which can be done is slow the slide. The best of all bad choices.

 

[MrMuppet]

Yes, but not in the US. :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

Nah, if that's all this is about, you'd have just answered "no" to the poll and left it that. Yet for some reason, you keep trying to convince others not to vote and I'm not really sure why.

I guess what I meant was that I would not push for a larger campaign to suppress turnout, I don't really view what I personally tell people in my life as having a meaningful impact on voter turnout.

As for what I'm telling people here though, it's pretty undeniably true. No matter what state you live in, swing state, red state, blue state, from the standpoint of electing your preferred candidate voting is worthless, and you shouldn't need a reason to tell the truth. To me this means that we should either add an incentive to vote or a penalty to not vote, as I also view high voter turnout as a societal good.

 

[fskimospy]

No, we are stuck with the ACA, and Romney isn't going to change it, but even more the principle of a punishment tax to coerce whatever the government wishes. If it isn't the most egregious violation of the bill of rights then you obey or can be ruined. Only the lack will is our protection. Any appeal to the Constitution is pointless, as now the ruling is that the concept of the limited authority of the federal government is erased. Our rights are now the enumerated ones. To many that is how it should be. I disagree.

Then we have a third candidate who has no chance. Even if he did he doesn't represent my ideals. He too is "act now, think later". His solution? Cut funding without regard to how best to improve things.

We both know the punishment tax and the ACA is staying. We also know that so is Roe.

No, IMO the only thing which can be done is slow the slide. The best of all bad choices.

Just so you know I'm unaware of a single solitary legal source on either side of the argument that believed a 'punishment tax' to be unconstitutional. In fact there was a basic unanimity that a 'punishment tax' was obviously constitutional, the only question was if the individual mandate was in fact a tax or not.

If you are looking for someone to appoint judges that won't hold such a tax as constitutional you are way out of luck with either candidate, and with judges in general just because from my knowledge basically no such judges exist.

 

[PokerGuy]

To me this means that we should either add an incentive to vote or a penalty to not vote, as I also view high voter turnout as a societal good.

What a lousy idea (either way, as an incentive or penalty). I can definitely see how pushing idiots and those who don't care enough to vote to the polls would help democrats, but it does nothing to benefit the country.

If they don't care enough to even bother voting today, forcing or incenting them to vote doesn't add any value.

 

[fskimospy]

What a lousy idea (either way, as an incentive or penalty). I can definitely see how pushing idiots and those who don't care enough to vote to the polls would help democrats, but it does nothing to benefit the country.

If they don't care enough to even bother voting today, forcing or incenting them to vote doesn't add any value.

The country benefits when it has the clearest expression of its population's wishes for governance.

It is incontestable that from a personal utility standpoint if your purpose for voting is to elect your preferred candidate, voting is utterly useless. It's funny that you think that people's choice not to participate in a useless exercise determines the value of their opinion. Maybe it just shows that they value their time more than you do.

 

[PokerGuy]

The country benefits when it has the clearest expression of its population's wishes for governance.

You keep saying that, but fail to provide any support or reason for the assertion. I see no benefit in each additional vote from people who are not interested in voting. If they valued the ability to have some input into the process, they would use that ability. Obviously, for whatever reason (they value their time more than I do, they don't care, they don't like either candidate, whatever) they don't want to participate. Adding their vote does nothing to benefit anyone.

It is incontestable that from a personal utility standpoint if your purpose for voting is to elect your preferred candidate, voting is utterly useless.

Absolutely correct. From an individual standpoint voting is utterly useless.

It's funny that you think that people's choice not to participate in a useless exercise determines the value of their opinion. Maybe it just shows that they value their time more than you do.

Again, the reason for them choosing not to vote is irrelevant. Adding their vote, either through penalty or incentive adds no value, unless you take the position that those who don't vote are generally better informed and can make a better "pick" and would thus improve the democratic process.

Of course it's all false pretense. Why not just be truthful about it and say "we need to push more people to vote because I think it would help my party"?

 

[fskimospy]

You keep saying that, but fail to provide any support or reason for the assertion. I see no benefit in each additional vote from people who are not interested in voting. If they valued the ability to have some input into the process, they would use that ability. Obviously, for whatever reason (they value their time more than I do, they don't care, they don't like either candidate, whatever) they don't want to participate. Adding their vote does nothing to benefit anyone.

Proof in what way? How could there be proof, and how is there any proof as to what you're saying either? The closest thing we could get is that there is definitely a strong correlation between more inclusive systems of governance, economic growth, and political stability.

Again, the reason for them choosing not to vote is irrelevant. Adding their vote, either through penalty or incentive adds no value, unless you take the position that those who don't vote are generally better informed and can make a better "pick" and would thus improve the democratic process.

Of course it's all false pretense. Why not just be truthful about it and say "we need to push more people to vote because I think it would help my party"?

Because you're projecting. I'm fully aware that you want to suppress turnout because you think it would help Republicans. I think a lack of a feeling of ownership in the outcome of elections is actually one of the largest problems our country has today, regardless of who actually wins. I also don't believe the purpose of the democratic process is to make the 'best pick'. In fact, I'm unaware of anyone who would use such a standard. The purpose of the democratic process is to express the will of the people.

 

[PokerGuy]

Proof in what way? How could there be proof, and how is there any proof as to what you're saying either? The closest thing we could get is that there is definitely a strong correlation between more inclusive systems of governance, economic growth, and political stability.

You assert that adding the votes of those who currently don't care to vote benefits society. You have yet to back up your claim in any way. "inclusive system of governance" does not mean incenting or penalizing those who don't want to participate such that they do.

I'm fully aware that you want to suppress turnout because you think it would help Republicans.

Hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Only in your twisted world is saying not to penalize or add additional incentives in order to make people vote the same as "suppress turnout". I don't want to suppress anything. If someone wants to vote, they are free to do so.

I think a lack of a feeling of ownership in the outcome of elections is actually one of the largest problems our country has today, regardless of who actually wins.

Speaking of mind bending pretzel twisting logic... First you say voting is useless for each individual, then you turn around and argue that forcing people to vote will make them have more of a feeling of ownership because their vote... matters... ? Good one.

The purpose of the democratic process is to express the will of the people.

... and those who wish to express their will can do so today.

 

[fskimospy]

You assert that adding the votes of those who currently don't care to vote benefits society. You have yet to back up your claim in any way. "inclusive system of governance" does not mean incenting or penalizing those who don't want to participate such that they do.

You assert that society only benefits from the input of those who elect to give it in our voting system, something you agree is an individually irrational decision. You have yet to back up your claim in any way. Of course inclusive doesn't mean penalizing. 'Inclusive' means broad in scope, it has nothing to do with how you arrive at such breadth.

Hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Only in your twisted world is saying not to penalize or add additional incentives in order to make people vote the same as "suppress turnout". I don't want to suppress anything. If someone wants to vote, they are free to do so.

From other threads you've made it abundantly clear that you wish to suppress votes. Regardless, the point is that the lower voter turnout is, the better Republicans generally do.

Speaking of mind bending pretzel twisting logic... First you say voting is useless for each individual, then you turn around and argue that forcing people to vote will make them have more of a feeling of ownership because their vote... matters... ? Good one.

lol. You're embarrassing yourself again. You need to concentrate less on winning and more on reading what people actually write. I said for the purpose of electing your preferred candidate voting is useless on an individual level. Voting from a societal level is most certainly not useless, and voting can have other benefits to individuals outside of selecting a candidate such as a feeling of ownership.

... and those who wish to express their will can do so today.

lol, way to go around in circles.

 

[PokerGuy]

You assert that society only benefits from the input of those who elect to give it in our voting system, something you agree is an individually irrational decision. You have yet to back up your claim in any way.

Hang on there skippy. You're the one who first stated that society would benefit from adding the votes of those who currently don't vote, using incentives or penalties to do so. You claim the reason for that is that it benefits society. The onus is thus on YOU to show that adding the votes of those who choose not to vote is beneficial to society. Your sad attempt to put turn it around fails. It's on you. You have failed to demonstrate how it benefits society in any way. Thus, your rationale for wanting to incent or penalize voters into voting has no basis.

From other threads you've made it abundantly clear that you wish to suppress votes.

Complete and utter BS. You equate asking for ID with 'suppressing votes', which is of course a logical fallacy.

Regardless, the point is that the lower voter turnout is, the better Republicans generally do.

Aha, now you're getting close to the truth. Why can't you just be truthful from the start? You want to find a way to benefit democrats, pure and simple. There's no benefit to society that you can demonstrate, so why cling to some BS excuse? Just state that you want to benefit your team.

voting can have other benefits to individuals outside of selecting a candidate such as a feeling of ownership.

Interesting, so if those benefits exist for individual voters, then voting is most certainly not useless, even for the individual then, blowing away your repeated assertion that it is. You're really twisting yourself into a logical pretzel, all in an vain attempt to not have to admit that you just want to benefit your team. Instead of the pretzel twisting, you can just say "we need to increase turnout, it benefits my side". See? Very simple and truthful.

 

[fskimospy]

Hang on there skippy. You're the one who first stated that society would benefit from adding the votes of those who currently don't vote, using incentives or penalties to do so. You claim the reason for that is that it benefits society. The onus is thus on YOU to show that adding the votes of those who choose not to vote is beneficial to society. Your sad attempt to put turn it around fails. It's on you. You have failed to demonstrate how it benefits society in any way. Thus, your rationale for wanting to incent or penalize voters into voting has no basis.

This is stupidity. How on earth would someone go about proving that? We can see throughout history that more inclusive governments are more prosperous and stable. It is a reasonable conjecture that more inclusive voting would do so. You not only claimed what I said was false, you then made another, separate claim that voters must be engaged in order to be more effective, something you failed to demonstrate in any way. Your rationale also has no basis by your own standard.

Unintentional self ownage yet again from PokerGuy.

Complete and utter BS. You equate asking for ID with 'suppressing votes', which is of course a logical fallacy.

What logical fallacy do you believe it to be? Yes however, Republican voter ID efforts are voter suppression, plain and simple. Anyone with a functioning brain can see when someone creates a law to stop something that they have no evidence exists and then comes out and says 'this will help my guy win the election' exactly what its purpose is.

Aha, now you're getting close to the truth. Why can't you just be truthful from the start? You want to find a way to benefit democrats, pure and simple. There's no benefit to society that you can demonstrate, so why cling to some BS excuse? Just state that you want to benefit your team.

You need to go read up on psychological projection. You're projecting all over the place again. Stating a fact that lower turnouts helps Republicans does not then mean that in order to support higher turnouts I must be doing it to support Democrats. What I like is that you did this immediately after accusing me of using a logical fallacy.

lol.

Interesting, so if those benefits exist for individual voters, then voting is most certainly not useless, even for the individual then, blowing away your repeated assertion that it is. You're really twisting yourself into a logical pretzel, all in an vain attempt to not have to admit that you just want to benefit your team. Instead of the pretzel twisting, you can just say "we need to increase turnout, it benefits my side". See? Very simple and truthful.

This is getting pathetic, can you not read? I have repeatedly stated my position on voting on this board, in threads I'm pretty sure you have participated in. It is useless for the purposes of seeing your preferred candidate enter office. It is also irrational from an individual perspective as it is a collective action problem. The benefits of voting come from society wide gains, not individual gains.

Should I break out the Flintstones phone to explain this to you? Seriously, by your own standard you should never vote as you are woefully ignorant of basic issues here.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just so you know I'm unaware of a single solitary legal source on either side of the argument that believed a 'punishment tax' to be unconstitutional. In fact there was a basic unanimity that a 'punishment tax' was obviously constitutional, the only question was if the individual mandate was in fact a tax or not.

If you are looking for someone to appoint judges that won't hold such a tax as constitutional you are way out of luck with either candidate, and with judges in general just because from my knowledge basically no such judges exist.

Those judges may or may not exist, however I note that act of voting has been seen as political speech, and therefore the idea of punishing someone for not doing it would have been considered unthinkable. I don't think that would fly- yet.

But lets install judges that look not at rights but societal good. With enough of them on the SCOTUS, they can make a construct where one has the absolute right not to vote, but buy god you are going to pay through the nose if you don't.

I oppose that kind of thing.

 

[dmcowen674]

No. I am not going to vote.

Why?

1. The false sense that my vote is going to change something.
2. Legitimizing the two party system.


Neither do me or you any good.

Will you vote?

Why do I not believe you?