Voting Worthless?

[BoomerD]

Too much bullshit to read the entire thread, so this might have already been said...but...

IMO, yes, voting is a waste of time. We're given the right to vote for candidates who have been chosen for us. Yes, we get to vote on the one we either like most...or hate least...but in the end, we're still choosing from candidates who have been vetted by those who actually control the country...Big business, big money.

PLUS, it doesn't seem to matter how "good" or how honest the candidate is, IF they get elected, they get corrupted by the system...and their allegiance changes from representing the people to representing the money.

The US political system...the best money can...and does buy.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I don't think it's completely worthless, but I also don't think there's any shame in abstaining if you either can't support any canidate or don't have a semi-studied opinion of it.

 

[a777pilot]

Too much bullshit to read the entire thread, so this might have already been said...but...

IMO, yes, voting is a waste of time. We're given the right to vote for candidates who have been chosen for us. Yes, we get to vote on the one we either like most...or hate least...but in the end, we're still choosing from candidates who have been vetted by those who actually control the country...Big business, big money.

PLUS, it doesn't seem to matter how "good" or how honest the candidate is, IF they get elected, they get corrupted by the system...and their allegiance changes from representing the people to representing the money.

The US political system...the best money can...and does buy.

Then, please, don't vote.

Thank you.

 

[a777pilot]

I don't think it's completely worthless, but I also don't think there's any shame in abstaining if you either can't support any canidate or don't have a semi-studied opinion of it.

Then, please, don't vote.

Thank you.

 

[fskimospy]

True, but only from that perspective.

Is not throwing your trash, or your car's old motor oil on the ground "completely and utterly worthless" because it doesn't make a significant dent in 'pollution'? Sure. Individually it doesn't count for much of anything, but collectively it sure does.

I don't think we would tell someone not to bother to recycle their oil because their individual act is meaningless.

Fern

That's why we pass laws that make it a crime to dump your oil because we found out that simply asking people not to do it wasn't working. This is precisely due to the fact that it was worthless from an individual perspective.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Ah, yes I agree then: sociopaths with no sense of community should not bother voting, since America isn't a dictatorship where their single vote controls the outcome.

With the bar set that high, only Vladimir Putin should ever vote.

 

[BoomerD]

Then, please, don't vote.

Thank you.

Fuck you...if you don't vote, you can't bitch.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, yes I agree then: sociopaths with no sense of community should not bother voting, since America isn't a dictatorship where their single vote controls the outcome.

With the bar set that high, only Vladimir Putin should ever vote.

You can vote if you want to have a sense of community, but your post clearly said that you should vote because it would affect the outcome. This is simply untrue. (well, not entirely untrue... just exceedingly unlikely)

 

[Paul98]

Voting is essential, just think what sort of numbers or changes would happen if the large groups of people who didn't think voting matters actually voted.

I know a lot of people think oh well it doesn't matter because both candidates are the same, or I don't like ether candidate. But they aren't the same on every issue, find out where they do differ. Then figure out what is more important to you.

 

[PingSpike]

Your choices are to vote for one of two almost identical douche bags that are chosen by the same entrenched wealthy powers for you, neither of which actually fully represent your interests in even their words, much less actions...or throw your vote away on a poorly funded third party candidate that has virtually zero chance of winning.

I voted no because I'm disillusioned. But Ross Perot actually got a pretty sizable chunk of the vote back in the 90s. On the other hand I think lobbying and media control efforts have improved enough that attempts by non-bought individuals to run will be crushed in their infancy to prevent them becoming a real threat. And voters are in on the game. Everyone is unhappy, but when a third party candidate runs people whine that "he's stealing votes!" from their lesser evil turd candidate.

 

[Texashiker]

Voting for the same 2 parties over and over = worthless

Voting for any other party besides the major 2 = not worthless

Your choices are to vote for one of two almost identical douche bags

People have other choices, the people just refuse to vote for those choices.

 

[DaveSimmons]

You can vote if you want to have a sense of community, but your post clearly said that you should vote because it would affect the outcome. This is simply untrue. (well, not entirely untrue... just exceedingly unlikely)

But your definition of matters is "decides the outcome by yourself" which sets the bar impossibly high, unless your name really is Vladimir Putin.

Mine is looser, "decided by a small number of people." In the WA governor's race, the winner was decided by less than 0.005% of the votes. If 130 more (or less) people had voted the outcome would have changed. Stay home, and the other candidate wins.

 

[a777pilot]

Fuck you...if you don't vote, you can't bitch.

I agree.

 

[Infohawk]

Then, please, don't vote.

Thank you.

I think you spamming the same thing over and over to each poster who has a certain viewpoint qualifies as trolling.

 

[fskimospy]

But your definition of matters is "decides the outcome by yourself" which sets the bar impossibly high, unless your name really is Vladimir Putin.

Mine is looser, "decided by a small number of people." In the WA governor's race, the winner was decided by less than 0.005% of the votes. If 130 more (or less) people had voted the outcome would have changed. Stay home, and the other candidate wins.

Right, but by the definition of how our elections run, your vote can only have mattered if its presence or absence would have changed the electoral result. I can't see how you could use any other definition, because what you're writing implicitly admits that 129 of those people COULD have stayed home and nothing would have changed. Even in such a close election, you had a 0.77% chance of changing it. Maybe that's high enough to motivate you to vote, but I think for most people that's not persuasive.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I think voting is a virtue, a societal good, whatever. All I'm trying to say is that for any individual voter the decision to go vote in any election is an irrational move from the perspective of trying to get your preferred candidate into office. The time investment as compared to the likelihood of return is so incredibly small as to make the return rate effectively zero.

 

[Nebor]

Then, please, don't vote.

Thank you.

The people you're asking not to vote are already committed to not voting because it's pointless. I don't know why you're thanking them for doing something they were going to do anyway. Presumably because you're a deranged old man. And if you think your vote counts in Texas you're even more lost than people here think.

 

[VtPC83]

I know a lot of people think oh well it doesn't matter because both candidates are the same, or I don't like ether candidate. But they aren't the same on every issue, find out where they do differ. Then figure out what is more important to you.

Good point. The problem is that candidates never stay true to how they portray themselves up to the getting elected. Once elected they are free to do what they really wanted to do which usually does not correspond to what they represented when I voted for them.

Basically, they lie to get elected (shock, surprise I know) and then do what they want (this is where the corruption begins).

 

[Ausm]

You are sadly delusioned if you think Republicans are the problem. If it's a politician it's a liar and the problem. It doesn't matter if their is an R or a D by their name.
Republicans may be more pro business, but Democrats are more keep the poor down and unmotivated so they won't succeed and won't have to vote for someone to keep their gubment checks coming in.

LMFAO and you think I'm delusional???

 

[werepossum]

LMFAO and you think I'm delusional???

Yes. Democrats do well among public employees and the dependent poor. It's not in the Democrat Party's interests to have these people do well - unless they can become government employees. It is in the Democrat Party's interests to have these people maintain the status quo. A man on welfare who gets a good-paying, non-union, non-government job tends to become a Republican. A man on welfare who stays on welfare or gets a shitty job tends to stay a Democrat. People with little or nothing to lose tend to support politicians who promise to take away more from others and give it to them. Even if the promise doesn't get fulfilled, they're seldom any worse off. People with something to lose tend to support politicians who promise not to take away. You do the math.

 

[Ausm]

Yes. Democrats do well among public employees and the dependent poor. It's not in the Democrat Party's interests to have these people do well - unless they can become government employees. It is in the Democrat Party's interests to have these people maintain the status quo. A man on welfare who gets a good-paying, non-union, non-government job tends to become a Republican. A man on welfare who stays on welfare or gets a shitty job tends to stay a Democrat. People with little or nothing to lose tend to support politicians who promise to take away more from others and give it to them. Even if the promise doesn't get fulfilled, they're seldom any worse off. People with something to lose tend to support politicians who promise not to take away. You do the math.

I am speechless never heard this type of logic before it has to be the biggest bunch of BS I think I have ever seen you post. I have a lot to take away and I wouldn't be caught dead voting for a Republican

 

[a777pilot]

I think you spamming the same thing over and over to each poster who has a certain viewpoint qualifies as trolling.

....and I don't.

So there.

 

[a777pilot]

The people you're asking not to vote are already committed to not voting because it's pointless. I don't know why you're thanking them for doing something they were going to do anyway. Presumably because you're a deranged old man. And if you think your vote counts in Texas you're even more lost than people here think.

At least I vote via a paper ballot.

 

[airdata]

Nope, voting doesn't matter on a local scale either. Go see when the last time a vote in your precinct was decided by a single vote was.

It matters because it's in the peoples hands. Just because none of them get out and actually vote doesn't change that.

When you talk about a presidential election, the electoral college has the final say.

 

[werepossum]

I am speechless never heard this type of logic before it has to be the biggest bunch of BS I think I have ever seen you post. I have a lot to take away and I wouldn't be caught dead voting for a Republican

Sorry, I meant smart people.

Boo-yah! <rimshot>

Sorry, the devil made me do it.

 

[hal2kilo]

I am speechless never heard this type of logic before it has to be the biggest bunch of BS I think I have ever seen you post. I have a lot to take away and I wouldn't be caught dead voting for a Republican

ditto ^2