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

[Intense]

One thing a Non Vote does represent is the health, or lack of health, of the Republic. Matters of Conscience are for each of us to decide for ourselves, not each other.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

One thing a Non Vote does represent is the health, or lack of health, of the Republic. Matters of Conscience are for each of us to decide for ourselves, not each other.

I think most non votes stem from apathy and laziness, and not from principle. The republic did fine all these years without a generally healthy proportion of eligible voters actually voting. Being involved with civic life and the political process has given way to teh pursuit of greed, and credit, and easy, simple solutions.

 

[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.

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

That, too, is not entirely clear. If Romney needed just two more votes to win the Electoral votes of my home state (I live in NY, so the example is of course purely hypothetical), but I decide not to vote, he loses the vote he would need from me to have it decided as tie. The one other person who would have voted for him if he had voted at all but who instead decides NOT to vote thus decides the election in favor of the person he would prefer to lose.

It may come with consequences, but a refusal to vote can count as much as the vote that is cast.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not in this case. Voting is a civic duty unbound by conscience because that has already been done by the founders of the social compact.

One thing a Non Vote does represent is the health, or lack of health, of the Republic. Matters of Conscience are for each of us to decide for ourselves, not each other.

 

[Liability]

Not in this case. Voting is a civic duty unbound by conscience because that has already been done by the founders of the social compact.

One thing a Non Vote does represent is the health, or lack of health, of the Republic. Matters of Conscience are for each of us to decide for ourselves, not each other.

No.

It is not a duty.

It is a right.

It is a privilege.

But it is not a duty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, it is a civic duty as well as a right. The factor that makes it so is reciprocity. We benefit from the social compact as citizens, so it is our duty to vote.

 

[Liability]

Yes, it is a civic duty as well as a right. The factor that makes it so is reciprocity. We benefit from the social compact as citizens, so it is our duty to vote.

There is no duty to vote.

It is desirable.

It should be encouraged.

But there is no obligation.

There is no duty inherent in it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, it is a civic duty as well as a right. The factor that makes it so is reciprocity. We benefit from the social compact as citizens, so it is our duty to vote.

There is no duty to vote.

It is desirable.

It should be encouraged.

But there is no obligation.

There is no duty inherent in it.

edit: oops: there is a civic obligation to vote. There is no legal obligation. edit

 

[Liability]

Yes, it is a civic duty as well as a right. The factor that makes it so is reciprocity. We benefit from the social compact as citizens, so it is our duty to vote.

There is no duty to vote.

It is desirable.

It should be encouraged.

But there is no obligation.

There is no duty inherent in it.

Moron, there is a civic obligation to vote. There is no legal obligation. Stop parading around your limited critical thinking skill set

Imbecile, and that does mean you, Dainty.

Get it through your thick skull, pin head and sub-microscopic brain.

There is no "duty" whatsoever. Not legal. Not moral. Not "civic." None.

Stop trying to pass yourself off as a person who knows anything. Your act is too transparently false to fool anyone.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no duty to vote.

It is desirable.

It should be encouraged.

But there is no obligation.

There is no duty inherent in it.

Moron, there is a civic obligation to vote. There is no legal obligation. Stop parading around your limited critical thinking skill set

Imbecile, and that does mean you, Dainty.

Get it through your thick skull, pin head and sub-microscopic brain.

There is no "duty" whatsoever. Not legal. Not moral. Not "civic." None.

Stop trying to pass yourself off as a person who knows anything. Your act is too transparently false to fool anyone.

a republic does not exist without ... even the freepers get this simple idea.


The Responsibility of Citizens

 

[Liability]

Moron, there is a civic obligation to vote. There is no legal obligation. Stop parading around your limited critical thinking skill set

Imbecile, and that does mean you, Dainty.

Get it through your thick skull, pin head and sub-microscopic brain.

There is no "duty" whatsoever. Not legal. Not moral. Not "civic." None.

Stop trying to pass yourself off as a person who knows anything. Your act is too transparently false to fool anyone.

a republic does not exist without ... even the freepers get this simple idea.


The Responsibility of Citizens

This is why it is commendable to vote.

This is why voting ought to be encouraged.

Better yet, an informed and educated electorate doing so is even healthier.

None of that, however, imposes a single solitary "duty."

Your wishful thinking aside, Dainty, words still have actual meaning.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Civil, moral, and ethical obligations exist in life. People like Liability and Ayn Rand would have citizens revert to a mythical natural state where altruism is evil, where a shared responsibility demands people vote.

If it's not illegal, everything goes. That is not society, that is anarchy. Like greed. Greed is not illegal.

 

[Liability]

Civil, moral, and ethical obligations exist in life. People like Liability and Ayn Rand would have citizens revert to a mythical natural state where altruism is evil, where a shared responsibility demands people vote.

If it's not illegal, everything goes. That is not society, that is anarchy. Like greed. Greed is not illegal.

People like Dainty cannot grasp that all who disagree with them are also wrong. It's simple.

Dainty is magnificently close-minded and wrong. Ergo, it only makes sense to disagree with him.

But he takes that as an affront instead of as an opportunity to open his pin-head up a bit and maybe even learn something.

Voting is a good thing. It is still not a duty.

Words still have meaning. Dainty is still a moron.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Citizens have duties that go beyond legislation. Morality and ethics and self-preservation dictate certain obligations and duties.

a simple definition: obligation: something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.

 

[Liability]

Citizens have duties that go beyond legislation. Morality and ethics and self-preservation dictate certain obligations and duties.

a simple definition: obligation: something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.

A sense of duty is not a duty, ya ignorant plodding dipshit.

Again, since you are sadly slow: doing it is a good thing. Commendable. Worthy of encouragement.

But a duty?

No.

Words still have actual meaning.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

liability jumps between obligation and duty. he insists on literal meanings that separate ideas words into neat little slots that fit into his constipated world view.

now if an obligation isn't a duty, what is it? are there multiple meanings for words in the English language? So how do educated and intelligent people discern the meant meanings of written and spoken words? context.

people like liability will consistently take words and ideas out of context and throw them onto the dung heap of their ideological and philosophical worlds.

 

[Liability]

liability jumps between obligation and duty. he insists on literal meanings that separate ideas words into neat little slots that fit into his constipated world view.

now if an obligation isn't a duty, what is it? are there multiple meanings for words in the English language? So how do educated and intelligent people discern the meant meanings of written and spoken words? context.

people like liability will consistently take words and ideas out of context and throw them onto the dung heap of their ideological and philosophical worlds.

Dainty waffles on the edge of having to properly define a word.

Ultimately, since he's a puss, he turns tail and runs away instead.

Words have actual meaning Dainty. The fact that you wish the word in question meant something else doesn't actually re-define it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, it is a civic duty as well as a right. The factor that makes it so is reciprocity. We benefit from the social compact as citizens, so it is our duty to vote.

There is no duty to vote.

It is desirable.

It should be encouraged.

But there is no obligation.

There is no duty inherent in it.

edit: oops: there is a civic obligation to vote. There is no legal obligation. edit

Imbecile, and that does mean you, Dainty.

Get it through your thick skull, pin head and sub-microscopic brain.

There is no "duty" whatsoever. Not legal. Not moral. Not "civic." None.

Stop trying to pass yourself off as a person who knows anything. Your act is too transparently false to fool anyone.

a republic does not exist without ... even the freepers get this simple idea.


The Responsibility of Citizens

This is why it is commendable to vote.

This is why voting ought to be encouraged.

Better yet, an informed and educated electorate doing so is even healthier.

None of that, however, imposes a single solitary "duty."

Your wishful thinking aside, Dainty, words still have actual meaning.

actual meanings? yep. but the word was 'obligation'

Civil, moral, and ethical obligations exist in life. People like Liability and Ayn Rand would have citizens revert to a mythical natural state where altruism is evil, where a shared responsibility demands people vote.

If it's not illegal, everything goes. That is not society, that is anarchy. Like greed. Greed is not illegal.

People like Dainty cannot grasp that all who disagree with them are also wrong. It's simple.

Dainty is magnificently close-minded and wrong. Ergo, it only makes sense to disagree with him.

But he takes that as an affront instead of as an opportunity to open his pin-head up a bit and maybe even learn something.

Voting is a good thing. It is still not a duty.

Words still have meaning. Dainty is still a moron.

Citizens have duties that go beyond legislation. Morality and ethics and self-preservation dictate certain obligations and duties.

a simple definition: obligation: something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.

A sense of duty is not a duty, ya ignorant plodding dipshit.

Again, since you are sadly slow: doing it is a good thing. Commendable. Worthy of encouragement.

But a duty?

No.

Words still have actual meaning.

liability jumps between obligation and duty. he insists on literal meanings that separate ideas words into neat little slots that fit into his constipated world view.

now if an obligation isn't a duty, what is it? are there multiple meanings for words in the English language? So how do educated and intelligent people discern the meant meanings of written and spoken words? context.

people like liability will consistently take words and ideas out of context and throw them onto the dung heap of their ideological and philosophical worlds.

Dainty waffles on the edge of having to properly define a word.

Ultimately, since he's a puss, he turns tail and runs away instead.

Words have actual meaning Dainty. The fact that you wish the word in question meant something else doesn't actually re-define it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is no duty to vote.

It is desirable.

It should be encouraged.

But there is no obligation.

There is no duty inherent in it.

Moron, there is a civic obligation to vote. There is no legal obligation. Stop parading around your limited critical thinking skill set

Imbecile, and that does mean you, Dainty.

Get it through your thick skull, pin head and sub-microscopic brain.

There is no "duty" whatsoever. Not legal. Not moral. Not "civic." None.

Stop trying to pass yourself off as a person who knows anything. Your act is too transparently false to fool anyone.

note: the unedited version. liability jumped on it before I figured out CLEAN ZONE. look back and my edit takes things out but not the term 'obligation'

 

[Liability]

Moron, there is a civic obligation to vote. There is no legal obligation. Stop parading around your limited critical thinking skill set

Imbecile, and that does mean you, Dainty.

Get it through your thick skull, pin head and sub-microscopic brain.

There is no "duty" whatsoever. Not legal. Not moral. Not "civic." None.

Stop trying to pass yourself off as a person who knows anything. Your act is too transparently false to fool anyone.

note: the unedited version. liability jumped on it before I figured out CLEAN ZONE. look back and my edit takes things out but not the term 'obligation'

I don't even know what you are blathering about now, Dainty.

The fact remains: words have actual meaning.

Your ongoing attempts to spin and your desire for them to mean something else have no relevance whatsoever.