- Dec 29, 2008
- 19,697
- 4,740
- 280
This thread is in response to a post by Grampa Murked U.
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?
Not voting does not make your opinion invalid, but it does make it irrelevant. Even when you believe both candidates suck, it is always possible to decide one candidate is at least marginally better than the other, if not in his stated positions, then in your estimation of his ability to deal effectively with the difficult decisions the next President will have to make, and if there is a better choice, imo, it is your civic duty to make it. To not vote is to embrace the idea of your political impotence.
Neither candidate is marginally better than the other. It is literally Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum.
No matter how long you hold out, your Mommy is not going to come to your door and say, XXXXX Grow up. You can make a real choice for a real candidate
Last edited by a moderator: