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

[beagle9]

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.

I may be wrong, but personally I think you are a closet Obama operative, who thinks that you can somehow get people to not vote by your reasoning here, and this because Obama fears that with everything that is going on now against him, that his base will sit it out and/or not be as excited to vote as they were before (or) rather it is feared that the voter Id act will keep thousands away from the polls, who would have (regardless of) been there voting for Obama if no act or law is then enforced, and even if no one knows who in the hec that they may be (or) even if they are actually legal or not, they still will vote or attempt to. The attacks or actions by this justice department on the states trying to implement the voter Id law, makes this justice department one of the most corrupt departments ever, as is found under this Obama administration. Hec they may trump all who had come before them, because they are pure corrupt in that justice department, and that is my opinion.

 

[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.

I may be wrong, but personally I think you are a closet Obama operative, who thinks that you can somehow get people to not vote by your reasoning here, and this because Obama fears that with everything that is going on now against him, that his base will sit it out and/or not be as excited to vote as they were before (or) rather it is feared that the voter Id act will keep thousands away from the polls, who would have (regardless of) been there voting for Obama if no act or law is then enforced, and even if no one knows who in the hec that they may be (or) even if they are actually legal or not, they still will vote or attempt to. The attacks or actions by this justice department on the states trying to implement the voter Id law, makes this justice department one of the most corrupt departments ever, as is found under this Obama administration. Hec they may trump all who had come before them, because they are pure corrupt in that justice department, and that is my opinion.

You might have a point, if it wasn't for the fact that I don't particularly care how you or anybody else votes. I'm not going to argue with anybody about how they plan to vote.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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

I believe I'm misunderstood, here. Granted, I think democracy is a highly flawed system, but properly worked (in the right representative republic sorta format) it's as good of a system for governance as I can imagine. As an individualist, I feel it's only right that each individual have some say (or at least the opportunity to have a say) in their fate as it relates to society as a whole, regardless of whether or not they're retarded. That I don't feel the uninformed, indecisive, unintelligent, or disillusioned should necessarily exercise/have to exercise that say doesn't mean that I don't think they should have the opportunity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then you are a proportional parlimentarian, to make up a term.

I happen to agree with you. I would love to break the strangle hold the Dems and the Pubs have on the system.

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

I believe I'm misunderstood, here. Granted, I think democracy is a highly flawed system, but properly worked (in the right representative republic sorta format) it's as good of a system for governance as I can imagine. As an individualist, I feel it's only right that each individual have some say (or at least the opportunity to have a say) in their fate as it relates to society as a whole, regardless of whether or not they're retarded. That I don't feel the uninformed, indecisive, unintelligent, or disillusioned should necessarily exercise/have to exercise that say doesn't mean that I don't think they should have the opportunity.

 

[usmcstinger]

Too many brave men and women gave their lives to protect our precious freedoms. One of those freedoms is the right to vote.

Edited. If you can't make a rational decision on who should be our next president, you most likely will have a hard time making any rational decision.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Too many brave men and women gave their lives to protect our precious freedoms. One of those freedoms is the right to vote.

If you can't make a rational decision on who should be our next president, you most likely will have a hard time making any rational decision.

That a citizen elects to not exercise a given right, in this case the right to vote, is unconnected to his freedom to exercise other rights, such as the First Amendment right to free expression.

 

[usmcstinger]

I have to believe the majority of those buying into this issue are generation Yers. The immaturity and lack of rational thinking ( except for those serving or served in our Armed Forces ) appear to be currently defining them.

 

[beagle9]

I have to believe the majority of those buying into this issue are generation Yers. The immaturity and lack of rational thinking ( except for those serving or served in our Armed Forces ) appear to be currently defining them.

Why do you think that Obama is going after what you describe here for votes ? He is in pursuit now of the youth who are still wet behind their ears and imature and ignorant as well....You described the perfect Obama voter now in your words.. B )

 

[usmcstinger]

Then you are a proportional parlimentarian, to make up a term.

I happen to agree with you. I would love to break the strangle hold the Dems and the Pubs have on the system.

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

I believe I'm misunderstood, here. Granted, I think democracy is a highly flawed system, but properly worked (in the right representative republic sorta format) it's as good of a system for governance as I can imagine. As an individualist, I feel it's only right that each individual have some say (or at least the opportunity to have a say) in their fate as it relates to society as a whole, regardless of whether or not they're retarded. That I don't feel the uninformed, indecisive, unintelligent, or disillusioned should necessarily exercise/have to exercise that say doesn't mean that I don't think they should have the opportunity.

Our form of Government is not a Democracy. You need to to learn the proper name of our form of Government. You would be wise to read "Our Constitutional Rocks" by Juliette Turner (she is 14 years old but wise well beyond her years). Goes on sale 9/4/2012.
I think it should be required reading for all people elected to or appointed to Federal Office.
Too many of those currently in Office have made statements highlighting their lack of Constitutional knowledge.

The antiquated term retarded is a hurtful slur.
What "Mental Retardation" Means
You need to look up the Federal Law signed by President Obama which is referred to as Rosa's Law.

 

[Katzndogz]

The act of not voting at all has the same result as being dead. Those who vote will make the decisions, not the dead.

 

[beagle9]

The act of not voting at all has the same result as being dead. Those who vote will make the decisions, not the dead.

They also have the result of being "dead weight", and you know how hard that is to drag around.. B )

 

[Liability]

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?

No.

The act of not voting IS voting.

It's voting "no."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability is right on.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not voting isn't a "no" vote. The act of not voting isn't a vote for none of the above. If it were, and the nays had it, neither person would be elected. The votes will be counted from among those who did vote. The ones who didn't vote won't be counted. There is no net effect. Which is why elections are only decided by those who vote. If no one in the country voted and the only ones who cared voted for their relative the election would be decided by those with the biggest family who cared enough to get to the polls.

 

[Katzndogz]

How hard can this be to decipher? Look at small local elections, school board elections. They have the smallest turnout of all kinds and types of elections. The election might be decided by as little as 2% of the entire population. Get your relatives and friends to the polls. If you have more than the other guy, you win. The tens of thousands of people who didn't bother voting didn't vote no. They were dismissed as non-essential.

 

[Liability]

Not voting isn't a "no" vote. The act of not voting isn't a vote for none of the above. If it were, and the nays had it, neither person would be elected. The votes will be counted from among those who did vote. The ones who didn't vote won't be counted. There is no net effect. Which is why elections are only decided by those who vote. If no one in the country voted and the only ones who cared voted for their relative the election would be decided by those with the biggest family who cared enough to get to the polls.

No. Not voting CAN absolutely be voting "no."

It's just not the answer to the exact same question.

Given two (and only two) "choices" worthy of the name, refusing to vote at all is the same as voting "no" to the entire (false) choice.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

If you do not vote will it affect the election in your state? Opinions are just opinions. But some of us actually view voting as a civic duty.

There is process that goes into getting on a party slate/ticket. Not liking a party choice is no reason to not vote. People keep wanting a third party candidate as if that would change things. Third party arguments neglect the fact that national parties need state affiliates to do all the work that goes into the process of selecting a national candidate.

Get rid of parties and we'll have a mess. Who would run and on what? Celebrity? Fame? Will the man/woman with the most money win?

People said in 2000 that a vote didn't matter. Then Bush v Gore decided an election and everyone who said it didn't matter who won, seemed to be saying Bush was the worst choice, Gore would have been better.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not voting isn't a "no" vote. The act of not voting isn't a vote for none of the above. If it were, and the nays had it, neither person would be elected. The votes will be counted from among those who did vote. The ones who didn't vote won't be counted. There is no net effect. Which is why elections are only decided by those who vote. If no one in the country voted and the only ones who cared voted for their relative the election would be decided by those with the biggest family who cared enough to get to the polls.

No. Not voting CAN absolutely be voting "no."

It's just not the answer to the exact same question.

Given two (and only two) "choices" worthy of the name, refusing to vote at all is the same as voting "no" to the entire (false) choice.

Okay. It just won't decide the election. The election will be decided only by those who vote.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then you are a proportional parlimentarian, to make up a term.

I happen to agree with you. I would love to break the strangle hold the Dems and the Pubs have on the system.

I believe I'm misunderstood, here. Granted, I think democracy is a highly flawed system, but properly worked (in the right representative republic sorta format) it's as good of a system for governance as I can imagine. As an individualist, I feel it's only right that each individual have some say (or at least the opportunity to have a say) in their fate as it relates to society as a whole, regardless of whether or not they're retarded. That I don't feel the uninformed, indecisive, unintelligent, or disillusioned should necessarily exercise/have to exercise that say doesn't mean that I don't think they should have the opportunity.

Our form of Government is not a Democracy. You need to to learn the proper name of our form of Government. You would be wise to read "Our Constitutional Rocks" by Juliette Turner (she is 14 years old but wise well beyond her years). Goes on sale 9/4/2012.
I think it should be required reading for all people elected to or appointed to Federal Office.
Too many of those currently in Office have made statements highlighting their lack of Constitutional knowledge.

The antiquated term retarded is a hurtful slur.
What "Mental Retardation" Means
You need to look up the Federal Law signed by President Obama which is referred to as Rosa's Law.

Federalist, republican form of government structure. How our political system works in practice, in how we govern, we use a representative democracy model, not a direct democracy model. We use a democratic process in elections.

agree?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not voting isn't a "no" vote. The act of not voting isn't a vote for none of the above. If it were, and the nays had it, neither person would be elected. The votes will be counted from among those who did vote. The ones who didn't vote won't be counted. There is no net effect. Which is why elections are only decided by those who vote. If no one in the country voted and the only ones who cared voted for their relative the election would be decided by those with the biggest family who cared enough to get to the polls.

No. Not voting CAN absolutely be voting "no."

It's just not the answer to the exact same question.

Given two (and only two) "choices" worthy of the name, refusing to vote at all is the same as voting "no" to the entire (false) choice.

Okay. It just won't decide the election. The election will be decided only by those who vote.

Fact: It's why both major parties like to suppress the vote of their opponents. Granted the GOP uses more blatantly illegal suppression tactics...