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

[Katzndogz]

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.

All you are saying is that elections will be decided by those who vote. Not the votes someone would have cast if only they had voted. If there is an election and 90% of the people vote, then the election would be decided by a majority of voters. If there is a 2% turnout, the election will be decided by the 2% that show up. It doesn't matter how many don't vote. Elections are decided by those who vote.

If what you say is true, then you had decided to vote for Romney, but for some reason decided not to vote and he loses the vote he needed to win. All that means is that your voice was not heard. You have disenfranchised yourself.

You remind me of a woman who wrote a very bitter letter to the editor in the local paper. She voted in a mayoral election and her candidate lost. She was very angry because her vote didn't count. She felt disenfranchised. Her vote was stolen from her because her choice lost. It was all for nothing. This is what elections are all about. You vote. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Those who don't vote will never be able to elect any candidate. They might feel they punished a candidate, but they haven't really. Not any more than if they were on their way to the voting booth and suddenly dropped dead.

 

[Liability]

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.

All you are saying is that elections will be decided by those who vote. Not the votes someone would have cast if only they had voted. If there is an election and 90% of the people vote, then the election would be decided by a majority of voters. If there is a 2% turnout, the election will be decided by the 2% that show up. It doesn't matter how many don't vote. Elections are decided by those who vote.

If what you say is true, then you had decided to vote for Romney, but for some reason decided not to vote and he loses the vote he needed to win. All that means is that your voice was not heard. You have disenfranchised yourself.

You remind me of a woman who wrote a very bitter letter to the editor in the local paper. She voted in a mayoral election and her candidate lost. She was very angry because her vote didn't count. She felt disenfranchised. Her vote was stolen from her because her choice lost. It was all for nothing. This is what elections are all about. You vote. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Those who don't vote will never be able to elect any candidate. They might feel they punished a candidate, but they haven't really. Not any more than if they were on their way to the voting booth and suddenly dropped dead.

Wrong. As I demonstrated, the act of not voting can help decide the election.

 

[Katzndogz]

When we got a ballot choice that says none of the above and force them to start all over, then voting no will have an effect, but not until then.

 

[Liability]

When we got a ballot choice that says none of the above and force them to start all over, then voting no will have an effect, but not until then.

Wrong again. NOT voting can have a huge impact on the outcome of a race.

Given the margin of victory in Florida in 2000, you'd think people would get that by now.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Except, unlike those people, I genuinely do not care whether Romney or Obama wins. Also no, Ohio will not be decided by one vote.

 

[Sallow]

Absolutely.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

All you are saying is that elections will be decided by those who vote. Not the votes someone would have cast if only they had voted. If there is an election and 90% of the people vote, then the election would be decided by a majority of voters. If there is a 2% turnout, the election will be decided by the 2% that show up. It doesn't matter how many don't vote. Elections are decided by those who vote.

If what you say is true, then you had decided to vote for Romney, but for some reason decided not to vote and he loses the vote he needed to win. All that means is that your voice was not heard. You have disenfranchised yourself.

You remind me of a woman who wrote a very bitter letter to the editor in the local paper. She voted in a mayoral election and her candidate lost. She was very angry because her vote didn't count. She felt disenfranchised. Her vote was stolen from her because her choice lost. It was all for nothing. This is what elections are all about. You vote. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Those who don't vote will never be able to elect any candidate. They might feel they punished a candidate, but they haven't really. Not any more than if they were on their way to the voting booth and suddenly dropped dead.

Wrong. As I demonstrated, the act of not voting can help decide the election.

The election will be decided ONLY by those who vote. Those who don't vote do not have their votes, had they voted, apportioned to decide who would have won IF they had voted. This isn't rocket science. You think that if you don't vote, it will throw the election to obama and thus punish republicans. How about people who didn't vote for obama? If they had voted he would win, but they didn't vote so he lost. He's going to face this, Will all the black people he pissed off so we'll see how that goes. A non vote can't decide an election. A non vote cannot elect anyone. Only a vote can do that. There are no elections won by people who don't vote.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a significant, if confused, percentage of the population that truly believes that if enough people don't vote, Ron Paul will be elected president.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There is a significant, if confused, percentage of the population that truly believes that if enough people don't vote, Ron Paul will be elected president.

Since this is the Clean Debate Zone we're going to require proof of this claim.

 

[freedombecki]

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?

I think you should state your opinion, and you did. You know, we're all different, raised in different homes, and have different reactions to other people in the world.

I don't share your view that Romney and Obama are "essentially clones of one another." I think there is a difference between someone who will pass and make an effort to stick to a budget and someone who uses an impossible-to-pass budget no one will sign onto as a political projection against the other side, which naive people buy into, and with no budget, Obama has used the Treasury as a free fire zone for taking money out to fund things outside of Congress' approval. Mitt Romney would not do that. The writer at the link concludes, "I’m guessing that this will be exactly like Solyndra. Obama will have spent a half-billion dollars on a product that never comes to market, and on jobs that never materialize."

However, I believe in the freedom to decide, and you decided against voting. You're fully within your constitutional rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Dante addressed the word/term 'obligation' in your post. You lost and you stepped back and kept ignoring things and posting about the definition of the term/word 'duty'

it's all in one post above...and in the flame zone.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...es-exposed-yet-again-issues-posting-usmb.html

 

[beagle9]

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.

Hec, I'm still trying to figure out what the definition of "IS" is, cuz Clinton sure has me hung up on that one and scratching me head still...ROTFLMBO..

 

[Liability]

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.

Dante addressed the word/term 'obligation' in your post. You lost and you stepped back and kept ignoring things and posting about the definition of the term/word 'duty'

it's all in one post above...and in the flame zone.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...es-exposed-yet-again-issues-posting-usmb.html

Dainty still speaks about himself in the third person. Megalomania looks good on him -- he thinks.

 

[dblack]

All you are saying is that elections will be decided by those who vote. Not the votes someone would have cast if only they had voted. If there is an election and 90% of the people vote, then the election would be decided by a majority of voters. If there is a 2% turnout, the election will be decided by the 2% that show up. It doesn't matter how many don't vote. Elections are decided by those who vote.

If what you say is true, then you had decided to vote for Romney, but for some reason decided not to vote and he loses the vote he needed to win. All that means is that your voice was not heard. You have disenfranchised yourself.

You remind me of a woman who wrote a very bitter letter to the editor in the local paper. She voted in a mayoral election and her candidate lost. She was very angry because her vote didn't count. She felt disenfranchised. Her vote was stolen from her because her choice lost. It was all for nothing. This is what elections are all about. You vote. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Those who don't vote will never be able to elect any candidate. They might feel they punished a candidate, but they haven't really. Not any more than if they were on their way to the voting booth and suddenly dropped dead.

Wrong. As I demonstrated, the act of not voting can help decide the election.

The election will be decided ONLY by those who vote. Those who don't vote do not have their votes, had they voted, apportioned to decide who would have won IF they had voted. This isn't rocket science. You think that if you don't vote, it will throw the election to obama and thus punish republicans. How about people who didn't vote for obama? If they had voted he would win, but they didn't vote so he lost. He's going to face this, Will all the black people he pissed off so we'll see how that goes. A non vote can't decide an election. A non vote cannot elect anyone. Only a vote can do that. There are no elections won by people who don't vote.

From the perspective of many those contemplating abstaining, the election has already been "decided". The nominations of the two major parties have ensured that nothing of substance will change. Why should we validate a rigged game by pretending it matters?

 

[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.

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.

Only in part. Some just go off the Grid.

 

[IGetItAlready]

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?

In other words, in all the races that will be decided on November 6th in your district, you have found none in which at least one candidate warrants you getting off your ass and taking part in YOUR Republic's political process?

No, technically that does not negate your voice however, it does raise questions about you.
You've stated your issues with Romney and Obama. So what do you have against all the other candidates running for president and those running in all those other races to be decided that day? Just curious...

 

[IGetItAlready]

Personally I find those unwilling to AT THE VERY LEAST vote fools who have no respect for their right to do so.
Write yourself in for fuck sake, but don't be a punk.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

In other words, in all the races that will be decided on November 6th in your district, you have found none in which at least one candidate warrants you getting off your ass and taking part in YOUR Republic's political process?

No, technically that does not negate your voice however, it does raise questions about you.
You've stated your issues with Romney and Obama. So what do you have against all the other candidates running for president and those running in all those other races to be decided that day? Just curious...

Well I would vote for Gary Johnson for President if any other race had a candidate that I was excited about, but he's not that great that I'm going to go vote for him specifically. Since he's the only Presidential candidate that I could possibly vote for on the ballot that pretty much rules out President. My Senate race is between Sherrod Brown and Josh Mandel. Sherrod Brown is terrible on economic issues, and he's been terrible on foreign policy ever since Obama took office as well. Though in all fairness he wasn't that great under Bush either. Mandel is one of the most blatantly corrupt criminals to run for office that I've ever seen, and that's not even to mention his positions on the issues. There are several independent candidates running, but none really worth getting excited over. My Congressional race is fairly boring with an incumbent establishment Republican running against an establishment Democrat in Ohio's new 7th district with no third party or independent candidates.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Personally I find those unwilling to AT THE VERY LEAST vote fools who have no respect for their right to do so.
Write yourself in for fuck sake, but don't be a punk.

I'm not of the legal age to be President of the United States, and I'm not narcissistic enough to vote for myself. Nor would I want the job in the first place. Writing myself in, however, strikes me as simply voting for voting's sake, and as nobody has yet been able to explain to me why I should simply vote for voting's sake other than it's my "civic duty" I don't see how not wasting my time makes me a punk.

 

[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.

Only in part. Some just go off the Grid.

not a bad idea.