Question regarding voting

[Scorpion]

With the election just about 3 weeks away we have various criteria by which we select our representatives.
Some are strictly party voters, some will actually give some thought to the candidates positions and some wont bother at all.

Here in Ohio, we have Democrat Ed Fitzgerald, former mayor of an inner ring Cleveland suburb and current county commissioner of Cuyahoga county running against incumbent Republican John Kasich.

I have an extended family member who is a hard-core Democrat and very active in the political scene. He LOATHES Kasich and will undoubtedly vote for Fitzgerald for governor.

Fitzgerald has not run a competent campaign by any means and I wonder are there those out there who disliking an incumbent to such a degree would not lead someone to not vote for either candidate if it is clear the opposition has trouble running his own campaign, how can he possibly run a state?

In other words, you oppose the ideology of one, but recognize the lack of competence from the other and simply not vote for either.

Or, do you simply vote for the 'lesser' of two evils and hope for the best?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I refuse to vote for either Republicans or Democrats as there is no difference between the two.

I vote independent, third party or i write in Donald Duck.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Most Democrats don't even know there's an election coming up!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

With the election just about 3 weeks away we have various criteria by which we select our representatives.
Some are strictly party voters, some will actually give some thought to the candidates positions and some wont bother at all.

Here in Ohio, we have Democrat Ed Fitzgerald, former mayor of an inner ring Cleveland suburb and current county commissioner of Cuyahoga county running against incumbent Republican John Kasich.

I have an extended family member who is a hard-core Democrat and very active in the political scene. He LOATHES Kasich and will undoubtedly vote for Fitzgerald for governor.

Fitzgerald has not run a competent campaign by any means and I wonder are there those out there who disliking an incumbent to such a degree would not lead someone to not vote for either candidate if it is clear the opposition has trouble running his own campaign, how can he possibly run a state?

In other words, you oppose the ideology of one, but recognize the lack of competence from the other and simply not vote for either.

Or, do you simply vote for the 'lesser' of two evils and hope for the best?

I won't be voting at all, because I genuinely don't care which one of them wins.

 

[Moonglow]

Just get drunk and wake up guilty...

 

[Penelope]

Oh I know, I try and vote for the lesser of two evils.

Very few vote for midterm here, that is why they put all the mileages on the ballot.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If you don't vote, you have forfeited your right to whine and bitch about the outcome or the actions of those who won.

 

[Penelope]

I think many politicians go in with good intentions all gun hoe, but after awhile it becomes more a game and they can end up selling their values just to stay in and one gets trapped, rather like a Priest or preacher who doesn't believe anymore, but they have so much invested, they continue and go through the motions. Whatever you want to hear, I'll tell you.

 

[MisterBeale]

If you don't vote, you have forfeited your right to whine and bitch about the outcome or the actions of those who won.

False. That is a common canard we are brainwashed to accept since the day we are forced into government schooling. By voting you legitimize the coercive violent monopoly the government has on the use of force. You legitimize their theft of your money (taxes.) You legitimize their inept, corrupt, and wasteful programs. If you don't sanction the system which only offers you corrupted choices, you have nothing to do with the eventual outcome.

If you vote, it's your fault things are the way they are. Only if you don't vote, you are not responsible for this mess. Voting gives you the illusion that you have a say. YOU DON'T. It gives the elites and oligarchs legitimacy to rule you in your name. But as we know, they all lie, saying one thing to get elected, do the exact reverse when they are elected.

By voting, you sanction the evil that is perpetrated in your name. I can see you didn't even watch the video I posted. Nice.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Probably get better results if we dissolved parties so you couldn't vote for party and instead had to actually compare candidates' positions on things you care about.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Your vote for in a race with an incumbent should be a referendum on the incumbent. If you think he or she has done the job well, you vote for him or her. If not.....you have to decide if keeping an ineffective guy in office is in your best interests.

Simple.

 

[Penelope]

Probably get better results if we dissolved parties so you couldn't vote for party and instead had to actually compare candidates' positions on things you care about.

I usually have voted for the person, but alas, if its between Clinton and Bush, I'm staying home.

 

[Scorpion]

I guess what bothers me is, the person whom I mentioned, is well educated, a law degree, teaches AP history , you get the picture. Yet his ideological beliefs would still make him choose someone who is clearly not competent to lead the state. Being an effective leader on a local level does not necessarily stranslate to the state level. Especially when your campaign implodes from preventable incidences.

 

[jwoodie]

I guess what bothers me is, the person whom I mentioned, is well educated, a law degree, teaches AP history , you get the picture. Yet his ideological beliefs would still make him choose someone who is clearly not competent to lead the state. Being an effective leader on a local level does not necessarily stranslate to the state level. Especially when your campaign implodes from preventable incidences.

You seem to equate campaigning competence with governing competence. Perhaps you should reconsider.

 

[jasonnfree]

If you don't vote, you have forfeited your right to whine and bitch about the outcome or the actions of those who won.

False. That is a common canard we are brainwashed to accept since the day we are forced into government schooling. By voting you legitimize the coercive violent monopoly the government has on the use of force. You legitimize their theft of your money (taxes.) You legitimize their inept, corrupt, and wasteful programs. If you don't sanction the system which only offers you corrupted choices, you have nothing to do with the eventual outcome.

If you vote, it's your fault things are the way they are. Only if you don't vote, you are not responsible for this mess. Voting gives you the illusion that you have a say. YOU DON'T. It gives the elites and oligarchs legitimacy to rule you in your name. But as we know, they all lie, saying one thing to get elected, do the exact reverse when they are elected.

By voting, you sanction the evil that is perpetrated in your name. I can see you didn't even watch the video I posted. Nice.

So what's your solution, have a lottery for who gets to be in office?

 

[jwoodie]

If you don't vote, you have forfeited your right to whine and bitch about the outcome or the actions of those who won.

False. That is a common canard we are brainwashed to accept since the day we are forced into government schooling. By voting you legitimize the coercive violent monopoly the government has on the use of force. You legitimize their theft of your money (taxes.) You legitimize their inept, corrupt, and wasteful programs. If you don't sanction the system which only offers you corrupted choices, you have nothing to do with the eventual outcome.

If you vote, it's your fault things are the way they are. Only if you don't vote, you are not responsible for this mess. Voting gives you the illusion that you have a say. YOU DON'T. It gives the elites and oligarchs legitimacy to rule you in your name. But as we know, they all lie, saying one thing to get elected, do the exact reverse when they are elected.

By voting, you sanction the evil that is perpetrated in your name. I can see you didn't even watch the video I posted. Nice.

So what's your solution, have a lottery for who gets to be in office?

Methinks Luddly intends that advice for others...

 

[Scorpion]

I guess what bothers me is, the person whom I mentioned, is well educated, a law degree, teaches AP history , you get the picture. Yet his ideological beliefs would still make him choose someone who is clearly not competent to lead the state. Being an effective leader on a local level does not necessarily stranslate to the state level. Especially when your campaign implodes from preventable incidences.

You seem to equate campaigning competence with governing competence. Perhaps you should reconsider.

In choosing his first running mate, he did not vet the candidate very well (he had questionable business/ unpaid tax issues I believe) and had to ask the running mate to step aside, for the past twelve years he has been driving without the benefit of a valid drivers license while holding those in the county to a strict standard, and he was discovered by police in a vehicle at 4am with a woman who was not his wife (not an offense of epic proportions these days) but these instances don't show very good judgement.

 

[MisterBeale]

If you don't vote, you have forfeited your right to whine and bitch about the outcome or the actions of those who won.

False. That is a common canard we are brainwashed to accept since the day we are forced into government schooling. By voting you legitimize the coercive violent monopoly the government has on the use of force. You legitimize their theft of your money (taxes.) You legitimize their inept, corrupt, and wasteful programs. If you don't sanction the system which only offers you corrupted choices, you have nothing to do with the eventual outcome.

If you vote, it's your fault things are the way they are. Only if you don't vote, you are not responsible for this mess. Voting gives you the illusion that you have a say. YOU DON'T. It gives the elites and oligarchs legitimacy to rule you in your name. But as we know, they all lie, saying one thing to get elected, do the exact reverse when they are elected.

By voting, you sanction the evil that is perpetrated in your name. I can see you didn't even watch the video I posted. Nice.

So what's your solution, have a lottery for who gets to be in office?

American politics is being held hostage by faction, or by the political parties. George Washington foresaw this and warned us about this in his farewell address. The only way to reform this system is for the people to get angry and demand that the way the bureaucracy, from the way the parties are run, down to the way the debates are run and parties are covered in the media is done differently. But currently, the power structures have no incentive to change. The political elites and families that run the show have every incentive to keep things the way they are. Voting, the way it is organized now, except in local elections and local ballot measures, is largely for show. It has been that way since around the civil war. Party bosses run things.


The people either need to signal they aren't happy with the machine politics and clean it up. In order to do that, they need to protest the political parties. Or first they need to get ANGRY at the parties. En masse, they need to boycott what is offered and collectively offer their own solution. But, I think watching the NFL and shopping at the mall is easier isn't it? Especially when you can make believe that when you voted you actually did something. w/e



But yeah, your solution is still better than the way we run things now. If we had a lottery for every House seat, and every Senate seat, including a lottery for the Presidency, than logic would dictate that those representing the population would more resemble the republic than the top richest 1% of the nation. Thus, chances are, they would not have any interest in authorizing HUGE invasive spy sweeps on the American Public, because only the 1% views the American Public as the enemy. Likewise, the government would not spend huge sums of money meddling in foreign countries, stirring up Islamic hatred, and intervening in other nations business. This phoney terror war would have ended years ago if a group of normal Americans were running the show. They would NEVER tolerate having these civilian drone deaths on their hands. . . . .

As it stands, voters don't have a choice. All politicians support killing and war, for no reason. (Unless you believe the war propaganda.) THEY DO THESE THINGS IN YOUR NAME.

The funeral for victims of the October 2006 attack on the Chenegai madrassa (STR/AFP/Getty Images)

“There was clearly a wedding party,” said Shiban. He said he believes U.S. officials “may have been fed the wrong intel. They saw a group of people waiting in trucks for a convoy and they assumed they were militants, so they made the decision to strike.”

If people were chosen by lottery, and then had to take a test on American government to see if they could do the job, we would have far superior government. No such government by true Americans would ever authorize this sort of brutality on innocents. Real Americans would either find real cause for going to war, follow the constitution, declare war, and then follow through, or negotiate with nations where the problem exists and use other means besides using non-discriminate WMD's

But the politicians we get to choose from? They are arrogant SOB's that view the collateral damage to poor brown people in far away places that don't matter to the economics of the world as meaningless. To the economic elites, it can only be a good thing, because it will cause more war. So these people are ignored and are just written off. Normal Americans with a conscious aren't psychopathic like that. They wouldn't do that.

So yeah, even a lottery would be an improvement.