• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should (and I don't mean in the legal sense) a major newspaper print the ramblings of someone who does not vote?

Random Variable

Random Variable

Lifer
In the Chicago Tribune's Voice of the People section this morning, the lead piece is from someone who (proudly) doesn't vote but thinks that he has the right to complain about his elected leaders.
 
Originally posted by: Ulfwald
Freedom of the press, freedom of speech.

Learn it, live it, love it.
Click to expand...
True, but I personally have a dim view of those who bitch loudly about politics and yet can't be bothered to do anything about it. You get one direct form of input per year as to who runs the show, is it really so hard to take an hour to go vote?

How about a link to the article? I'm curious to see what this guy has to say.

 
Originally posted by: Vespasian
Originally posted by: Ulfwald
Freedom of the press, freedom of speech.

Learn it, live it, love it.
Click to expand...
My question wasn't about Constitutionality.
Click to expand...

You neglected to note that in your original post.

Anywho -

Newspapers are run for profit and therefore do anything to sell papers.


 
How about a link to the article? I'm curious to see what this guy has to say.
Click to expand...
I went through the same phase when I was 18, but I realized quickly that not voting was not the solution:
Chicago -- As a 26-year-old who did not vote in the Nov. 5 election, many might believe that I am simply another example of an increasingly uninterested, alienated and apathetic young culture. But trust that I, like many of the people I have spoken to about this election, do not fit this stereotype.

We are people who are all too aware of the way our system works. We are beyond disenchantment and are openly disgusted with our electoral system. We see the hypocrisy between what we learn in school about "government by the people, for the people" and the way things really work.

We simply can't bring ourselves to vote for the major candidates because they don't talk about issues that really matter to us, such as poverty, affordable housing and paths toward peace.

Just as the Tribune sometimes shows enough spine to not endorse any candidate, we want even higher standards and do not want to lend our support to a system that doesn't let us have real choices.

I did not vote last Tuesday out of my allegiance to my hopes one day of securing a real democracy in this country. Just as the citizens of Poland or the Soviet Union used to boycott their rigged elections, I believe the fastest way to change our corrupt system is to delegitimize it.

A few more elections with the poor being disenfranchised, money buying votes, special interests determining the limits of debate and lack of popular participation will hopefully solidify the recognition of the failure of our system. Only then will real reform in the direction of our marvelous Constitution be realized.

Until then, I and people like me will continue to try to get our voices heard in a way we have found to be more effective than voting: speaking to friends and neighbors about issues that matter, writing letters to people in power, speaking up at public meetings and, yes, even protesting in the street.
Click to expand...
 
Let him talk all he wants. The paper isn't required to print what he has to say. He can say it all he wants, but the CT doesn't have any obligation to print the dumbass's ramblings.

nik
 
If you read sunday's Tribune I had a letter to the editor published. 🙂 I complained about ID's not being checked.


Newspapers are run for profit and therefore do anything to sell papers.
Click to expand...


If you had _any_ experience working at a newspaper you'd know that was not true.
 
Linky

Quoty:

"The candidates are mere actors who spend most of their time reciting platitudes from history's tired list, insulting one another's character, and making promises that are literally impossible to keep. Behind the scenes, behind the smoke and mirrors, they comprise the unified ruling class. Where they disagree is where the party lines are drawn.

Whether we vote Democrat or Republican, we are voting for those beholden to free market capitalism. Globalization and its bodyguard, the U.S. military, win every election. "

 
Well, if I read it right, his point is that the parties do not represent the electorate, and he chooses not to vote as a protest. One may agree or not with his voting philsophy, but if we are not represented correctly, then that in itself is worthy of discussion.

We had 13 offices where I live. I did not vote in 9 of them. Why? Because I has a Saddams choice. One name, unopposed. One person on a ballot constitutes a farce, not an election.
 
Originally posted by: Vespasian
In the Chicago Tribune's Voice of the People section this morning, the lead piece is from someone who (proudly) doesn't vote but thinks that he has the right to complain about his elected leaders.
Click to expand...

He has all the right in the world (or US anyway) to complain.

Read the US Constitution, Amendment 1

 
Well you should write an editorial yourself explaining how this person should either shut up or do something constructive rather than say " i did not vote sause I did not like any candidates." remember Ralph Nader? He had no chance in hell of getting elected but he made his point by getting out there and capturing a percentage of the votes.
 
Originally posted by: snooker
Originally posted by: Vespasian
In the Chicago Tribune's Voice of the People section this morning, the lead piece is from someone who (proudly) doesn't vote but thinks that he has the right to complain about his elected leaders.
Click to expand...

He has all the right in the world (or US anyway) to complain.

Read the US Constitution, Amendment 1
Click to expand...

Strange... I read it, and it doesn't say anything about newspapers being required to print anything that the people want printed...

Hmm... so I guess the Chicago Tribune can tell this guy to go fsck himself and he couldn't do jack sh|t about it. And they should, too. Anyone who refuses to participate in the government hasthe right, but not the place to complain about it.

nik
 
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Hmm... so I guess the Chicago Tribune can tell this guy to go fsck himself and he couldn't do jack sh|t about it. And they should, too. Anyone who refuses to participate in the government hasthe right, but not the place to complain about it.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, you can see the publication of the piece as an attempt to initiate a dialogue on flaws in the current electoral system and how it could be reformed, rather than just as "complaining". Not that "go fsck himself" is the most useful of dialogue regarding the issue.
 
Originally posted by: palad
Linky

Quoty:

"
Whether we vote Democrat or Republican, we are voting for those beholden to free market capitalism. "
Click to expand...


And there is something wrong with this?

 
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: palad Linky Quoty: " Whether we vote Democrat or Republican, we are voting for those beholden to free market capitalism. "
Click to expand...
And there is something wrong with this?
Click to expand...

Depends on the context. If he means that elected officials owe Ken Lay more than you and me, then I agree. In general, I have no problem with government working with business, but if they are in their pocket I do.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Well, if I read it right, his point is that the parties do not represent the electorate, and he chooses not to vote as a protest. One may agree or not with his voting philsophy, but if we are not represented correctly, then that in itself is worthy of discussion.

We had 13 offices where I live. I did not vote in 9 of them. Why? Because I has a Saddams choice. One name, unopposed. One person on a ballot constitutes a farce, not an election.
Click to expand...
That's a completely absurd comparison. The fault in those elections lies with those who chose not to run, not with the fact that there was only a single candidate. Blame the party that didn't put up a challenger, but don't blame the election process. And if "we are not represented correctly", then how the hell do you expect it to change if you don't vote to put like-minded individuals into office? If you claim that there aren't enough like-minded individuals running, the RUN YOURSELF. People fail to realise that in a democratic REPUBLIC such as the United States the people's obligation does not end with merely voting. A Republic requires that people work within the system instead of neglecting everything for 364 out of 365 days a year.

ZV
 
People who don't vote don't have any legitimate standing when it comes to complaining about the goverment. IMO

It also cracks me up when people don't vote because, "the candidates all suck". That may be true but I don't think I've ever cast a ballot where there wasn't some other issues (lottery, property taxes, various ordinances, etc). People who don't vote are either lazy, stupid or both.

We had 13 offices where I live. I did not vote in 9 of them. Why? Because I has a Saddams choice. One name, unopposed. One person on a ballot constitutes a farce, not an election.
Click to expand...

Harold Ford ran unopposed here. Do you consider that a farce?
 
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Well, if I read it right, his point is that the parties do not represent the electorate, and he chooses not to vote as a protest. One may agree or not with his voting philsophy, but if we are not represented correctly, then that in itself is worthy of discussion. We had 13 offices where I live. I did not vote in 9 of them. Why? Because I has a Saddams choice. One name, unopposed. One person on a ballot constitutes a farce, not an election.
Click to expand...
That's a completely absurd comparison. The fault in those elections lies with those who chose not to run, not with the fact that there was only a single candidate. Blame the party that didn't put up a challenger, but don't blame the election process. And if "we are not represented correctly", then how the hell do you expect it to change if you don't vote to put like-minded individuals into office? If you claim that there aren't enough like-minded individuals running, the RUN YOURSELF. People fail to realise that in a democratic REPUBLIC such as the United States the people's obligation does not end with merely voting. A Republic requires that people work within the system instead of neglecting everything for 364 out of 365 days a year. ZV
Click to expand...

I am glad you know so much of my local politics. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how precisely this came about? Perhaps you can explain how canidates who run for office here find their business suddenly inspected. Business permits suddenly denied. Of course that is all coincidence. It is well known by people around here that you will be punished if you buck the system. But I suppose that does not indicate a problem. Must be my attitude. Facts mean little since you have your mind already made up.

Your words do not make a viable alternative availible here. Great theory though.
 
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
People who don't vote don't have any legitimate standing when it comes to complaining about the goverment. IMO It also cracks me up when people don't vote because, "the candidates all suck". That may be true but I don't think I've ever cast a ballot where there wasn't some other issues (lottery, property taxes, various ordinances, etc). People who don't vote are either lazy, stupid or both.
We had 13 offices where I live. I did not vote in 9 of them. Why? Because I has a Saddams choice. One name, unopposed. One person on a ballot constitutes a farce, not an election.
Click to expand...
Harold Ford ran unopposed here. Do you consider that a farce?
Click to expand...

Was the election rigged that way? If so yes.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
People who don't vote don't have any legitimate standing when it comes to complaining about the goverment. IMO It also cracks me up when people don't vote because, "the candidates all suck". That may be true but I don't think I've ever cast a ballot where there wasn't some other issues (lottery, property taxes, various ordinances, etc). People who don't vote are either lazy, stupid or both.
We had 13 offices where I live. I did not vote in 9 of them. Why? Because I has a Saddams choice. One name, unopposed. One person on a ballot constitutes a farce, not an election.
Click to expand...
Harold Ford ran unopposed here. Do you consider that a farce?
Click to expand...

Was the election rigged that way? If so yes.
Click to expand...

So if a guy/gal is so popular and has been elected so many times that it is impossible to beat them the election is a farce? I don't think so.


am glad you know so much of my local politics. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how precisely this came about? Perhaps you can explain how canidates who run for office here find their business suddenly inspected. Business permits suddenly denied. Of course that is all coincidence. It is well known by people around here that you will be punished if you buck the system. But I suppose that does not indicate a problem. Must be my attitude. Facts mean little since you have your mind already made up.
Click to expand...

If you had posted this to begin with I'm sure it would have made a difference in the responses you got. There is a huge difference in what you are describing and someone running unopposed because they simply have the full trust and confidence of their chosen electorate. I hope you can see the difference. Or is your mind already made up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top