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

[dblack]

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.

Of course "the ball" is ours. And we won't regain control of our government until we realize that, regardless of whether we vote or not.

 

[Paulie]

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.

It's a civic right, not a duty. A duty implies obligation, and we are under no obligation as citizens to vote.

The fact that YOU don't know this, along with your usual horrible spelling and grammar, speaks volumes about our schools and society.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ball is "ours", that's the point.

We are a unique nation of individualism and community.

As long as you keep trying to keep the two separate, you will never gain (not "regain", you never had it) a majority control of the government.

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.

Of course "the ball" is ours. And we won't regain control of our government until we realize that, regardless of whether we vote or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it is a duty, a moral and civic obligation to be knowledgable and to vote. That is part of the social compact of the United States from the beginning. Citizens must have civic virtue, and they show that virtue by knowing and voting on the issues.

It's a civic right, not a duty. A duty implies obligation, and we are under no obligation as citizens to vote. // The fact that YOU don't know this, along with your usual horrible spelling and grammar, speaks volumes about our schools and society.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

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.

You've yet to explain why we should simply vote for voting's sake.

 

[Borillar]

This thread is in response to a post by Grampa Murked U.

No vote = keep your opinion to yourself imo

I decided several months ago that come November I was not going to bother to vote in the general election. I can't vote for either Obama or Romney, since they're essentially clones of one another, and while I might throw Gary Johnson a vote if there was another race, such as Senate or House, that had a candidate worth supporting he isn't good enough on his own to warrant taking the time out of my day to go vote for him.

So should my opinion be invalidated despite the fact that my decision not to vote is as principled as anybody's decision to vote, and not simply motivated by apathy?

On second thought, I think yours is a principled decision. Why vote for someone you disagree with? In fact I encourage all Republicans to sit this one out.

 

[dblack]

This thread is in response to a post by Grampa Murked U.

No vote = keep your opinion to yourself imo

I decided several months ago that come November I was not going to bother to vote in the general election. I can't vote for either Obama or Romney, since they're essentially clones of one another, and while I might throw Gary Johnson a vote if there was another race, such as Senate or House, that had a candidate worth supporting he isn't good enough on his own to warrant taking the time out of my day to go vote for him.

So should my opinion be invalidated despite the fact that my decision not to vote is as principled as anybody's decision to vote, and not simply motivated by apathy?

On second thought, I think yours is a principled decision. Why vote for someone you disagree with? In fact I encourage all Republicans to sit this one out.

Indeed. As should all Democrats who realize Obama doesn't represent their interests. As long as we keep falling for the same old, same old, that's all we're going to get.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

Indeed. As should all Democrats who realize Obama doesn't represent their interests. As long as we keep falling for the same old, same old, that's all we're going to get.

ahoy Dblack,

good to see ye matey.

ye know, i've thought 'bout this debate fer a while now - i've heard many reasons why one would stay in thar quarters and not vote, and can understand and sympathize with'm.

*ponders*

still though, thar be such a thing as the lesser 'o two evils. the idear be scorned by them who be unbudgin' in thar principles, but the fact is we make many choices in our lives usin' that very metric. thats life, afterall, aye?

if i have to choose between haggis and tripe stew fer me supper, imma not all that happy either way....but i gotta eat, fer i hafta fill me belly, so i have to pick. haggis it is, avast ye!

if i don't choose, i go hungry.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not what I said.

I said that voting is part of your civic duty as well as working for change.

Anybody who votes for voting sake without knowing the issues will be used by the fringe elements in our country.

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.

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.

You've yet to explain why we should simply vote for voting's sake.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This thread is in response to a post by Grampa Murked U.

No vote = keep your opinion to yourself imo

I decided several months ago that come November I was not going to bother to vote in the general election. I can't vote for either Obama or Romney, since they're essentially clones of one another, and while I might throw Gary Johnson a vote if there was another race, such as Senate or House, that had a candidate worth supporting he isn't good enough on his own to warrant taking the time out of my day to go vote for him.

So should my opinion be invalidated despite the fact that my decision not to vote is as principled as anybody's decision to vote, and not simply motivated by apathy?

Absolutely not!

This idea that the only way to make your voice heard is to pick the douche or the turd sandwich is rigoddamndiculous. The act of not voting also sends a message to both parties. Ever hear of voter turn-out statistics and how that's analyzed? 'Nuff said.

 

[Some Guy]

The electoral college does it's best to discourage me from voting. However, think about how lucky we are to be able to vote for our leadership. Think about those poor fuckers in Iran and Venezuela where they can't vote for who represents them. If for no other reason, don't take your right to vote for granted.

 

[dilloduck]

Indeed. As should all Democrats who realize Obama doesn't represent their interests. As long as we keep falling for the same old, same old, that's all we're going to get.

ahoy Dblack,

good to see ye matey.

ye know, i've thought 'bout this debate fer a while now - i've heard many reasons why one would stay in thar quarters and not vote, and can understand and sympathize with'm.

*ponders*

still though, thar be such a thing as the lesser 'o two evils. the idear be scorned by them who be unbudgin' in thar principles, but the fact is we make many choices in our lives usin' that very metric. thats life, afterall, aye?

if i have to choose between haggis and tripe stew fer me supper, imma not all that happy either way....but i gotta eat, fer i hafta fill me belly, so i have to pick. haggis it is, avast ye!

if i don't choose, i go hungry.

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Ye olde pirate false dichotomy as we get a President whether we vote or not and since they are known to behave differently than they promised one could mistakenly elect the bigger by voting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not what I said.

I said that voting is part of your civic duty as well as working for change.

Anybody who votes for voting sake without knowing the issues will be used by the fringe elements in our country.

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.

You've yet to explain why we should simply vote for voting's sake.

You're saying two things. That I should be an informed voter, and I think I qualify otherwise I don't think I'd be here, and that I should vote. So as an informed voter I've concluded that I shouldn't bother voting, yet this is a problem for you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not what I said, so go back and read it.

Know the issues and then vote, or you will be used.

Got it now? An informed voter will never be a libertarian in the first place.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Not what I said, so go back and read it.

Know the issues and then vote, or you will be used.

Got it now? An informed voter will never be a libertarian in the first place.

If you vote you're being used. If you don't really like a candidate, yet you vote for that candidate anyway as the lesser of two evils, you're sending a message to that political party that one more voter approves of the sour milk you're being served.

I say fuck 'em. Stay home. The game's rigged any God damn way, you're only gonna get the Christian-conservative corporatist candidate or the pseudo-marxist collectivist corporatist candidate. Stop giving the two parties running the show the idea that their soft serve bullshit is palatable. You say if I don't vote I'll be used. I say if you don't like the candidates, but you do vote you're being used.

Also, I stay pretty well informed. Still libertarian

Not so much a function of knowledge as it is of ideals. For seemingly most people these days, the question needs to be about what serves society best as a whole. If that's your ideal, then perhaps you can't be informed and a libertarian at the same time, depending on what you feel best serves "society". My ideal is how society can best serve the individual. The collective can eat shit for all I care. Give me the freedom to provide for me and mine, keep people from shitting on eachother's freedom, mind your own God damn business and I'll do the same. If that means there's people starving in the streets when economic downturns happen, too bad so sad. I'll take freedom at the price of personal responsibility over security at the price of freedom any day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then you are saying you don't like democracy. OK. Offer something else.

 

[MeadHallPirate]

Ye olde pirate false dichotomy as we get a President whether we vote or not and since they are known to behave differently than they promised one could mistakenly elect the bigger by voting.

ahoy Dilloduck,

if yer sayin' that ye can never know what, precisely, a candidate will do when he be faced with the reality 'o governin', then yer right - one should never vote (in any election) if that be how ye feel.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not what I said, so go back and read it.

Know the issues and then vote, or you will be used.

Got it now? An informed voter will never be a libertarian in the first place.

Well in that case it doesn't matter whether I vote or not, because I'm an uninformed libertarian.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, you are a principle libertarian, whose personality if not politics, I respect a lot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nah, you are a principle libertarian, whose personality if not politics, I respect a lot.

Well I appreciate that, and it's always fun having a discussion with you. But if an informed voter will never be a libertarian, and I'm a libertarian, I must not be an informed voter and whether or not I vote is irrelevant. In fact, being uninformed it may even be better that I don't plan to vote.