Does the act of not voting invalidate one's political opinions?

[thanatos144]

Or maybe it tells you that I don't think voting has anything to do with fixing the problem? I voted for Ron Paul in the primary because I thought that would help fix the problem. I'm not voting in November because I don't see how it fixes the problem.

What it says is you dont wish to do your civic duty and whose opinion on politics has little value to those actually in the game.

It's not my civic duty to flip a coin and vote for Clone A or Clone B. And for somebody who now seemingly disregards my opinion you're doing a lot of responding to my posts.

It is your civic duty to vote.... The fact that you don't know this speaks volumes about our schools and society.

 

[thanatos144]

If enough people voted for the other guy, it might teach the party a lesson. A landslide victory means one party picked the wrong candidate.

And if absolutely nobody voted then everybody might realize we're tired of the horrible choices they put up every single time.

The choices are still made by the voter in the primary... Just cause your candidate lost does not mean we had no choice .... It just ment most didn't agree with yours.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What it says is you dont wish to do your civic duty and whose opinion on politics has little value to those actually in the game.

It's not my civic duty to flip a coin and vote for Clone A or Clone B. And for somebody who now seemingly disregards my opinion you're doing a lot of responding to my posts.

It is your civic duty to vote.... The fact that you don't know this speaks volumes about our schools and society.

I decide what my civic duties are. Not you, and not anybody else. And my civic duties do not include voting just for the sake of voting. If my options are Tweedledee and Tweedledum then I'll pass.

 

[thanatos144]

It's not my civic duty to flip a coin and vote for Clone A or Clone B. And for somebody who now seemingly disregards my opinion you're doing a lot of responding to my posts.

It is your civic duty to vote.... The fact that you don't know this speaks volumes about our schools and society.

I decide what my civic duties are. Not you, and not anybody else. And my civic duties do not include voting just for the sake of voting. If my options are Tweedledee and Tweedledum then I'll pass.

You might need to look up the term cause you are not right.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is your civic duty to vote.... The fact that you don't know this speaks volumes about our schools and society.

I decide what my civic duties are. Not you, and not anybody else. And my civic duties do not include voting just for the sake of voting. If my options are Tweedledee and Tweedledum then I'll pass.

You might need to look up the term cause you are not right.

I'll appreciate any evidence you have to suggest that it's somehow my civic duty to vote for the sake of voting.

 

[Ravi]

If enough people voted for the other guy, it might teach the party a lesson. A landslide victory means one party picked the wrong candidate.

And if absolutely nobody voted then everybody might realize we're tired of the horrible choices they put up every single time.

True. I don't see that as ever happening. My idea is better.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If enough people voted for the other guy, it might teach the party a lesson. A landslide victory means one party picked the wrong candidate.

And if absolutely nobody voted then everybody might realize we're tired of the horrible choices they put up every single time.

True. I don't see that as ever happening. My idea is better.

Not when both parties pick the wrong candidate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All Americans have the right to their own opinion and the right to voice it.

And all Americans have the right to make fun of Americans who don't vote.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All Americans have the right to their own opinion and the right to voice it.

And all Americans have the right to make fun of Americans who don't vote.

So should I vote simply for the sake of voting, rather than not vote since I don't support either of the candidates?

 

[dblack]

All Americans have the right to their own opinion and the right to voice it.

And all Americans have the right to make fun of Americans who don't vote.

So should I vote simply for the sake of voting, rather than not vote since I don't support either of the candidates?

That's pretty much what they're saying. And it's an empty argument at best.

As you an others have pointed out, if you don't support any candidates on the ballot, and you go with a write-in, your vote is literally thrown away. Which makes the effort a pointless ritual.

Moreover, if you believe the system is a rigged game, voting works against your interests by implicitly endorsing a corrupt process. This is the real, unstated reason they are so insistent on pressuring everyone to vote. If we don't vote, they have no geniune mandate to rule us. It worked the same way in Soviet Russia where the elections were equally pointless. Citizens were still under intense pressure to vote, to endorse the sham elections and pretend that they were deciding the outcome.

 

[Vidi]

If enough people voted for the other guy, it might teach the party a lesson. A landslide victory means one party picked the wrong candidate.

And if absolutely nobody voted then everybody might realize we're tired of the horrible choices they put up every single time.

The choices are still made by the voter in the primary... Just cause your candidate lost does not mean we had no choice .... It just ment most didn't agree with yours.

I agree. Far too many voters skip the primary then complain that we have poor choices in the general. If only extremist vote in the primaries, then the candidates are extreme. If we want more moderate candidates, we get them by voting for the moderates in the primaries.

History is made by those who show up.

oh, and on a side note, Kevin, if you think Romney and Obama are just clones of each other, then you simply aren't paying attention.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And if absolutely nobody voted then everybody might realize we're tired of the horrible choices they put up every single time.

The choices are still made by the voter in the primary... Just cause your candidate lost does not mean we had no choice .... It just ment most didn't agree with yours.

I agree. Far too many voters skip the primary then complain that we have poor choices in the general. If only extremist vote in the primaries, then the candidates are extreme. If we want more moderate candidates, we get them by voting for the moderates in the primaries.

History is made by those who show up.

oh, and on a side note, Kevin, if you think Romney and Obama are just clones of each other, then you simply aren't paying attention.

Funny, I would say the same of those who think they're not clones of each other.

 

[Vidi]

The choices are still made by the voter in the primary... Just cause your candidate lost does not mean we had no choice .... It just ment most didn't agree with yours.

I agree. Far too many voters skip the primary then complain that we have poor choices in the general. If only extremist vote in the primaries, then the candidates are extreme. If we want more moderate candidates, we get them by voting for the moderates in the primaries.

History is made by those who show up.

oh, and on a side note, Kevin, if you think Romney and Obama are just clones of each other, then you simply aren't paying attention.

Funny, I would say the same of those who think they're not clones of each other.

and you would be horribly wrong

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney in 2012 Presidential Candidates

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Barack_Obama_vs_Mitt_Romney

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I agree. Far too many voters skip the primary then complain that we have poor choices in the general. If only extremist vote in the primaries, then the candidates are extreme. If we want more moderate candidates, we get them by voting for the moderates in the primaries.

History is made by those who show up.

oh, and on a side note, Kevin, if you think Romney and Obama are just clones of each other, then you simply aren't paying attention.

Funny, I would say the same of those who think they're not clones of each other.

and you would be horribly wrong

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney in 2012 Presidential Candidates

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Funny, I would say the same... etc...

 

[Vidi]

Funny, I would say the same of those who think they're not clones of each other.

and you would be horribly wrong

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney in 2012 Presidential Candidates

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Funny, I would say the same... etc...

In other words, you will not be swayed by facts. Your opinion is yours regardless of the proof to its inaccuracy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and you would be horribly wrong

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney in 2012 Presidential Candidates

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Funny, I would say the same... etc...

In other words, you will not be swayed by facts. Your opinion is yours regardless of the proof to its inaccuracy.

You're mistaking your subjective analysis with an objective analysis.

 

[dblack]

and you would be horribly wrong

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney in 2012 Presidential Candidates

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Funny, I would say the same... etc...

In other words, you will not be swayed by facts. Your opinion is yours regardless of the proof to its inaccuracy.

The links you posted compared their claims, not their records. When you compare how each has actually governed, it's a wash. They're both corporatists through and through. If you want corporatism, then I suppose it's worth trying to find differences between them. If you don't, it's not.

 

[Vidi]

Funny, I would say the same... etc...

In other words, you will not be swayed by facts. Your opinion is yours regardless of the proof to its inaccuracy.

The links you posted compared their claims, not their records. When you compare how each has actually governed, it's a wash. They're both corporatists through and through. If you want corporatism, then I suppose it's worth trying to find differences between them. If you don't, it's not.

sigh...see my previous post.

 

[dblack]

In other words, you will not be swayed by facts. Your opinion is yours regardless of the proof to its inaccuracy.

The links you posted compared their claims, not their records. When you compare how each has actually governed, it's a wash. They're both corporatists through and through. If you want corporatism, then I suppose it's worth trying to find differences between them. If you don't, it's not.

sigh...see my previous post.

yawn... which one?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, the empty argument is yours.

KK and dblack and the rest: get off your butts and work and vote for change. That's how a democracy work. If you don't like it, bitch about it. But it also means that we get to make fun of you because you can't take the ball (because it is not yours) and go home.

All Americans have the right to their own opinion and the right to voice it.

And all Americans have the right to make fun of Americans who don't vote.

So should I vote simply for the sake of voting, rather than not vote since I don't support either of the candidates?

That's pretty much what they're saying. And it's an empty argument at best.

As you an others have pointed out, if you don't support any candidates on the ballot, and you go with a write-in, your vote is literally thrown away. Which makes the effort a pointless ritual.

Moreover, if you believe the system is a rigged game, voting works against your interests by implicitly endorsing a corrupt process. This is the real, unstated reason they are so insistent on pressuring everyone to vote. If we don't vote, they have no geniune mandate to rule us. It worked the same way in Soviet Russia where the elections were equally pointless. Citizens were still under intense pressure to vote, to endorse the sham elections and pretend that they were deciding the outcome.