What is wrong with the brains of the Vote Nazis?

[Ex Machina]

I am repeatedly stunned by the number of people who say "If you don't vote you don't have the right to complain." Or "It is your duty/responsibility to vote." Or "People died for your right to vote"... and therefore...what?

I know beyond any doubt that suffrage is a right, and as such it can be exercised or not. I think that's called "freedom" or "liberty" or something like that. So I can't figure out why choosing to not exercise one right denies you another right, namely the freedom of speech.

If I am equally pleased or equally disgusted with candidates so that I have no preference then why would I pretend that I do? And if you participate in the election of an idiot and he starts screwing my country up don't I have the right to say "Hey! You elected an idiot and he's screwing my country up."

Here is my advice to all citizens: If you don't know what the hell is going on then DON'T VOTE. But if you do have a preference go right ahead. Voting doesn't make you more of a citizen. This is just what the Vote Nazis tell everyone to support their fantasies of political participation.

So what exactly is wrong with their brains?

[Gomez]

If I am equally pleased or equally disgusted with candidates so that I have no preference then why would I pretend that I do?


I'm in a similar situation. I have nothing but mistrust for the main party candidates in England. I still vote, in a manner of speaking, by spoiling my ballot. Spoiled ballots are counted and recorded so mine is an appropriate statement of my dislike of all the options. Enough spoiled ballots and the parties will (hopefully) instigate some real reform to make them relevant to the public again.

As such I take a slightly dim view of people who don't vote because they hate all the candidates. They still have a chance to make a statement.

Having said that, I have nothing against people who don't vote because they're just not well informed enough to make a decision. I'd rather have them stay at home than pollute the ballot box with preferences that are based on completely uninformed opinions.

[Marley23]

And if you participate in the election of an idiot and he starts screwing my country up don't I have the right to say "Hey! You elected an idiot and he's screwing my country up."
Yes, you do. But if you did nothing to stop the election of that idiot or couldn't be bothered to vote for a different idiot, you're not in much of a position to criticize.

It would be great if everyone who voted was well-informed. That's probably not the issue most of the time, though; I'd wager it's laziness. I think if everyone (or at least a large percentage) was well-informed, the amount who would have absolutely no preference for any candidate would be small.

I wouldn't call myself a vote Nazi. Well, who would? I didn't plan to vote in 2000 and only did after I changed my mind at the last minute. If you want to stay home on principle, just be satisfied that that's your choice. Don't expect people to go lauding you for it. Do you want a medal or something?

[scr4]

Here is my advice to all citizens: If you don't know what the hell is going on then DON'T VOTE.
I agree with that. But if you then complain about the guy you didn't vote against, I will think of your complaints as hypocritical, or at least not very persuasive.

So what exactly is wrong with their brains?
Is this an acceptable way to phrase a question in GD?

[ElvisL1ves]

Responsible citizenship requires you to "know what the hell is going on". Voting is just the end result of that, and not the only one, either - there are many other ways in which a responsible citizen takes action betweentimes.

I'll actually agree that if you don't care enough to know much, you shouldn't try to dilute the votes of those of us who do. But then, if you don't care much, why the complaining?

[Ex Machina]

Here is a scenario. A man looks at the Presidential candidates and decides that he has no preference. All appear to say noble things and make sensible promises. There is no reason to choose amongst them. Four candidates are offered and the man with the vote decides to split his vote evenly by giving each man, theoretically, one-fourth of his suffrage. This is the same as staying home and watching the festivities on t.v.

One man is elected. Soon it is evident that he is incompetent and unethical. He is pushing bills which are unconstitutional. The man who has expressed no preference is up in arms. How is this "hypocritical" behavior? How does a man lose his right to speech simply because he could find no reason to put one candidate above the others?

Incidentally, I never said that I don't vote. And if that is true then I obviously didn't say that I was proud of the fact that I don't vote. And if I care enough to post about self-righteous people 'guilting' others into voting-while-ignorant then I obviously care and it makes no sense to ask "if you don't care much...?"

And I'm sorry about the negative title of the thread. I should have asked: "Is there anything right with their brains?"

[burundi]

ElvisL1ves said it. People have a responsibility as well as a right to participate in the political process. By voting, by staying informed, and by working to change policies they see as wrong or stupid. You're a member of a community and a nation, not an island unto yourself.

Stay home on Election Day. Stay uninvolved. It's your right. It's my right to think less of you for it.

[Lissa]

Hi, my name is Lissa, and I'm a Vote Nazi.

(Hi, Lissa!)

Thank you for that warm welcome, but before I am beaten to a pulp, please let me further elaborate on my position.

I do believe that it is every American's duty to participate in our election/decision making process but I also believe that it is every American's duty to do so well-informed about the candidates and issues at hand.

A numb-skull who goes to the voting booth and pushes buttons at random, or does so with only a vague understanding of for what or whom he is voting is shirking his duty every bit as much as someone who stayed in bed on Election Day. This is actually, in my ever-so-humble opinion, a sort of secular blasphemy. They are bastardizing the process, and, to borrow a phrase, polluting the voting pool.

I am embarassed at our palrty voter turn-out every election day, but I would rather see low numbers than uninformed voters tipping the scales. Nevertheless, I do feel that these people are not doing their civic duty.

[Ex Machina]

Is voting a right or a responsibility?

Can you support your answer without resorting to emotional patriotic arguments?

[Marley23]

Lissa doesn't say it (just implies it), but here's one: some people out there don't know what they're doing. If you know what you're doing and don't vote, you're increasing the power of the idiots to elect a leader.

[Ex Machina]

Hi Lissa!

I appreciate your patriotism (and your sense of humor). It is fine that you believe voting is your duty. But is it fair, because of your personal feelings about participation, to regard it as a "duty" for others?

I'm pretty sure that "rights" are options and not requirements.

[Darwin's Finch]

A numb-skull who goes to the voting booth and pushes buttons at random, or does so with only a vague understanding of for what or whom he is voting is shirking his duty every bit as much as someone who stayed in bed on Election Day. This is actually, in my ever-so-humble opinion, a sort of secular blasphemy. They are bastardizing the process, and, to borrow a phrase, polluting the voting pool.

How many people actually do this? I would guess that among those who vote, the vast majority have a pretty good idea who they are voting for and are not picking randomly or just pushing buttons or pulling levers for the hell of it, as seems to be opinion of many "pro voters" so far in this thread. They may have some diffuculty with the machinery or the ballots (see Florida), but that doesn't mean they are all ignorant as to who they are voting for or why. Their reasons may not make sense to allegedly enlightened folks, but to the the people doing the voting, the reasons make all the sense they need to.

And who judges how informed a voter is anyway? I would bet that there are several people on this board alone who firmly believe that anyone who would willingly cast a vote for Candidate X is clearly ignorant, uninformed, and one of the very dolts whom you wish to keep away from the polls. Just read through any Bush or Dean thread here in GD or BBQ and you can probably readily identify such people.

Myself, I am of the opinion that I should not have to choose between "the lesser of two evils", as so often seems to be the case the days. Why, then, should I be mandated to choose any evil? If I do not feel any of the candidates are qualified to run this country (including the no-chance 3rd party ones), why should I be scorned for not being willing to put any of these people in office? Especially since we do not have the luxury of having "spoiled" votes count, as Gomez has. I may feel that my reasons for withholding my vote are every bit as reasoned as yours for choosing one candidate over the rest - does that make me uninformed?

I am embarassed at our palrty voter turn-out every election day, but I would rather see low numbers than uninformed voters tipping the scales. Nevertheless, I do feel that these people are not doing their civic duty.

Perhaps the voter turnouts are low because much of the country disagrees with the idea that anyone must vote. Zealotry of any sort does tend to be a fringe position, after all.

[Lissa]

Hi Lissa!

I appreciate your patriotism (and your sense of humor). It is fine that you believe voting is your duty. But is it fair, because of your personal feelings about participation, to regard it as a "duty" for others?

I'm pretty sure that "rights" are options and not requirements.

As I see it, our system is a sort of reciprocal agreement: we elect leaders, decide on issues, and our representatives put those in motion. Our Republic's system depends on the voters. As it's set up, there is no government without the populace electing it.

We certainly all recieve benefits from government: they keep us safe from invasion of foreign powers, fund programs to assist us when we're down, educate our children, regulate various industries for our saftey, and myriad other functions. It's my opinion that our side of the "bargain" is to contribute to the decision-making processes with our votes.

Maybe the Girl Scouts had undue influence on my point of view in this matter, but it's my opinion that we are obligated to participate in the electoral process, just as it is our duty to pay taxes, or sit on juries when asked to do so. We're all part of the system: we all benefit from it, and thus should contribute to it. We can't expect government to run itself-- that's not the intention of our system.

[Lissa]

How many people actually do this? I would guess that among those who vote, the vast majority have a pretty good idea who they are voting for and are not picking randomly or just pushing buttons or pulling levers for the hell of it, as seems to be opinion of many "pro voters" so far in this thread. They may have some diffuculty with the machinery or the ballots (see Florida), but that doesn't mean they are all ignorant as to who they are voting for or why. Their reasons may not make sense to allegedly enlightened folks, but to the the people doing the voting, the reasons make all the sense they need to.

After the last presidential election, my husband (who teaches at our local branch campus) took an informal poll of his students. He asked all who had voted to raise their hands. About half of the class had done so, which impressed him. He then asked how many of those voters had watched any of the debates. Few had. He asked how many of them had read a newspaper, watched TV news, visited their candidate's web-site, or read a news magazine article about their candidate. Only a minority had.

He then asked them how they had decided which way to cast their vote. Most of those who did not avail themselves of traditional information outlets reported that it was based third-hand information from friends, relatives, religious leaders, or co-workers. Further probing, he found that a good deal of the information they had was incorrect.

Class that day became a political forum. To his distress, he found that a good deal of the students had loud, strident opinions, and considered themselves well-informed, but had little real information to back them up.

So yes, I have a fear that a portion of the voters going to the booths have little real knowledge of for what or whom they're voting. They vote based on rumor or what their friends think.

[SteveEisenberg]

So yes, I have a fear that a portion of the voters going to the booths have little real knowledge of for what or whom they're voting. They vote based on rumor or what their friends think.

Right. Personally, I rarely know much about candidates for any office other than President, Governor, or US Senator. So I used to not vote for other offices on the theory that other people who knew more should make the decision. Of course, the problem is that those other people who are voting don't know squat about the Registrar of Wills candidates either. So lately I vote a straight ticket, which like all the alternatives is imperfect.

I strongly believe that there are lots of wonderful people who don't have an interest in politics. I see no reason for them to change and vote.

[John Carter of Mars]

Very nice response, ElvisL1ves.

Have any of you that don't go vote ever thought that your vote for County Comissioner, Dogcatcher, or whatever is much more weighty, per-capita, than votes for President or Governor? Also that your vote for City Commissioner may well affect your life much more than your vote for President?

I'm in the camp that thinks it's every citizen's responsibility to take the time to know the issues and candidates, and then go vote your conscience.

If there's a particular race you're uncertain about, by-pass that one, but there are certainly SOME races that you feel strongly about, and the outcome of which will affect your life.

So, yeah. If you couldn't be bothered to study the issues and vote, you've lost some of your right to bitch about the results, IMHO.

[whiterabbit]

I bet there are a lot of people under the impression that I was under -- if you go to vote, you must vote for ALL the people/propositions/whatevers on the ballot. I was only disabused of this notion during the last state election here. I bet that scares some people away -- the sort who know they damn well want to vote for Candidate Y for governor but have no idea about the six people running for some mysterious local office. So they don't vote at all, even for the candidate they know about. I suspect with all the moving people do these days there's a lot more of that going on. Louisiana isn't like anywhere I've ever lived, for one thing. Eek.

[lucwarm]

I'm with the OP.

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you have to go to a demonstration every year.

you're increasing the power of the idiots to elect a leader.

True, but the idiots command an overwhelming majority in any event.

[asterion]

I figure if there are some races you just don't know/don't care about (for example, many city, county, and state positions) then you should get the voting endorsements of a newspaper or other source that you trust to make a good recommendation (keeping in mind the biases of the source, of course) and vote that way.

[amarinth]

Another Vote Nazi checking in.

I do think that voting is a civic duty. It is not asking much to ask citizens to show up and cast a ballot a few times a year. It takes maybe 20 minutes - usually less. (Especially in states where getting an absentee ballot is trivial. I know people who have voted every election and haven't been to the polls in years.)
I really do feel that a person's complaint has much less meaning if he or she didn't vote. That person had a chance to do something about it - and didn't.

I figure if there are some races you just don't know/don't care about (for example, many city, county, and state positions) then you should get the voting endorsements of a newspaper or other source that you trust to make a good recommendation (keeping in mind the biases of the source, of course) and vote that way.

That's what I do for things like Port Commissioner. I'm not even sure what a Port Commissioner does... but if I've read 3 newspapers, all of whom endorse Jane Smith and say that John Jones is an incompetent idiot, I vote for Smith. If they disagree, I read why they endorse one candidate over the other, and choose based on which lines of reasoning they use and how I judge those lines. Especially with the web and all the election information on the web, it's not that hard.

[Ex Machina]

I really do feel that a person's complaint has much less meaning if he or she didn't vote. That person had a chance to do something about it - and didn't.
I still don't see a real argument other than just saying, "I get a feeling of hypocrisy." To disparage a fellow citizen's opinion because he exercised his free prerogative to express (for all anyone knows) his approval of the status quo by not supporting one particular candidate is disturbing.

The statement that a person "had a chance to do something about it" presupposes that the critic recognized an alternative before the election and chose to ignore it. I don't think it's fair to make that assumption and then base your indictment of fellow citizens on the "feeling" the assumption creates.

[Harmonious]

For people who like "none of the above," there is actually an alternative. Every polling booth I've ever seen has the option of a "write-in" ballot. The person you want may not be on the ballot, but there is a space (and usually a pen or pencil available) to write the name of a person you would prefer instead of the listed candidates.

I'm also of the mind that if you don't vote, you have the right to complain, but if you knew what the alternatives were and didn't bother, I reserve the right to laugh at you for not trying.

[Alan Owes Bess]

If you sincerely have no interest in voting for anyone, then the answer is quite simple.

Don't bother.

All casting a vote would amount to in such circumstances would be to acknowledge and declare, in effect, that you believe in the quaint myth that the "people rule". Perhaps you have already noticed how totally irrelevant the voter becomes to the political process once the election is over (disregarding, for the moment, street demonstration activities and the like).

Equally as irritating as the Vote Nuisances are those other pests who place a great deal of significance on whether or not you "know" who your local politico (Fed, State, Council) happens to be. As if that matters a damn. It is about as useful as searching out the identity of your local bank manager when you have no need to contact him or her.

The pointlessness of simply "knowing" the identity of that personage (bank manager, political stooge) should be particularly obvious to those who live in a political district where one party or another has a lock on the electoral outcome.

I could, if I ever needed to, find out the names of my political "representatives" in about 3 minutes, but I would only do this if I ever needed to approach one of them on official business and ask them to make "representations" on my behalf. The only time that political "representatives" ever genuinely represent one of the voters in their district, incidentally.

[Kimstu]

AOB: The pointlessness of simply "knowing" the identity of that personage (bank manager, political stooge) should be particularly obvious to those who live in a political district where one party or another has a lock on the electoral outcome.

I always thought that the point of knowing the identity of your various reps is that it should entail at least some knowledge of what they're up to. I agree that a bank manager is someone whose actions need not directly concern me unless I want to deal directly with him/her (as long as I don't read that he/she's been indicted for embezzlement or something like that), but I think it's part of a citizen's job to have some idea of what your reps are doing even if you're not lobbying them directly.

Similarly, I always thought that the "you ought to vote" guilt-trip (which I cheerfully practice myself, and sometimes on myself) was more about the necessity of being an informed and engaged citizen than about the desirability of just pulling a lever on Election Day. If you've looked at the issues and honestly decided that you don't care or know enough about the differences between the choices to vote meaningfully, I have much more respect for you than I do for someone who just shrugs and says "I never vote, I don't know anything about it, it's all bullshit anyway." The more citizens behave like that, the more bullshitty politics will get.

SE: I strongly believe that there are lots of wonderful people who don't have an interest in politics.

I agree. However, I think that these otherwise-wonderful people are shirking one of the important duties of citizens of a republic.

(By the way, there are workarounds available for that. I have a friend in a different state who's one of the world's most wonderful people, but he finds it really tough to get motivated about researching or deciding on any electoral issues below the federal level. However, we share a lot of the same values and political principles, so I've sort of become his "voting consultant". When there's an election coming up in his district, I study up on the issues and candidates---everything from senatorial races down to local referenda---and email him a brief summary of the options along with some cites and my recommendations. Yeah, in theory I could abuse his trust to use his vote for my own political agenda, but I wouldn't do that and he knows I wouldn't. It may be a sort of second-hand citizenship for him, and it makes more work for me, but I think it's much better than just abdicating a citizen's electoral responsibilities.)

[CarnalK]

We've had a couple threads about this. I know I posted in one but can't find it.

Anyhoo, I basically agree with the OP that not voting doesn't invalidate all your other political actions/thoughts. There are many ways to affect a democracy and quite frankly I'm not convinced loudly complaining isn't more effective than a vote. Also, not voting generally gets noted as apathy while spoiled/write-in votes are chalked up to stupidity or whackiness. Which point are you trying to make (assuming you haven't sunk to the "lesser of two evils" strategy)?

Also I hate it when Vote-Nazis load you into cattle cars and ship you off to be murdered.

[Ex Machina]

I once voted for a candidate specifically because he assured the voters repeatedly that he would implement policies A, B, and C upon election. But when elected he claimed that his perspective had changed and he did not find it feasible to pursue implementation of the policies. He transformed into the opposing candidate and life went on with nary a whisper of protest from my fellow electors. In effect, not only was my vote nullified, my vote went toward support of policies antithetical to my beliefs.

The next election cycle I refrained from voting. Instead I wrote a series of letters to a newspaper with a statewide circulation. My criticisms of policy were thus heard by many thousands of people.

A vote Nazi would conclude that I was practicing sufficient civic behavior in the former instance and should have been censored in the latter.

But in which case was I being more effective, and being more traditionally American?

This is one of the things that bothers me about Vote Nazis. They elevate symbolic acts above substance.

[Alan Owes Bess]

Originally posted by Kimstu

… I think that these otherwise-wonderful people are shirking one of the important duties of citizens of a republic.

(By the way, there are workarounds available for that. I have a friend in a different state who's one of the world's most wonderful people, but he finds it really tough to get motivated about researching or deciding on any electoral issues below the federal level. However, we share a lot of the same values and political principles, so I've sort of become his "voting consultant". When there's an election coming up in his district, I study up on the issues and candidates---everything from senatorial races down to local referenda---and email him a brief summary of the options along with some cites and my recommendations.

You truly believe in that pap, don’t you.

Whether or not you live in a safe electoral district (Local, State, Federal) for one party faction or other, has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, you have no political power worth a damn?

Has it occurred to you that maybe a more accurate description of the system of government you describe as a “republic” (the long-winded title being a: “Constitutional Republic”) would be: “Elective Dictatorship”, in which the subjects have:

No power or to approve proposed new laws or regulations.
No power to repeal laws or regulations.
No power to penalise or restrain the rulers, elected or otherwise, or their agents for abuses of power.

And the winning party faction can (and does) basically what it pleases for most of the term of its office).

I take it that after casting your vote at an election you feel a warm glow of satisfaction at a job well done.

Oh well. Each to his own.

[marky33]

Slight departure:
If it were a legal neccessity to vote, as I believe it is in Australia, conscientious non-voters would presumably be making more of a statement than voters who were "guessing".
Would the vote nazis here, in that case, endorse staying at home? Or is it taking part in the system that counts?

[Kalhoun]

I am repeatedly stunned by the number of people who say "If you don't vote you don't have the right to complain." Or "It is your duty/responsibility to vote." Or "People died for your right to vote"... and therefore...what?

I know beyond any doubt that suffrage is a right, and as such it can be exercised or not. I think that's called "freedom" or "liberty" or something like that. So I can't figure out why choosing to not exercise one right denies you another right, namely the freedom of speech.

If I am equally pleased or equally disgusted with candidates so that I have no preference then why would I pretend that I do? And if you participate in the election of an idiot and he starts screwing my country up don't I have the right to say "Hey! You elected an idiot and he's screwing my country up."

Here is my advice to all citizens: If you don't know what the hell is going on then DON'T VOTE. But if you do have a preference go right ahead. Voting doesn't make you more of a citizen. This is just what the Vote Nazis tell everyone to support their fantasies of political participation.

So what exactly is wrong with their brains?
1) You DO have a duty to vote. You may not like everything about every candidate, but a person can usually align himself with the party that most accurately reflects his feelings on matters that affect us all. Duty is simply what you should be doing. You don't have to...you just should. Exercising the right to vote is something a WHOLE LOT of people don't get to do. It's really quite invigorating. You should try it.

2) You have a right to complain even if you don't vote. This is America. Complain all you want. But some people might not listen as closely as they would if you cared more at election time. I only want you to vote if you vote the same party/candidate I vote. So if you're on the other side, keep being apathetic! ;)

3) If the reason you don't vote is because you don't know what's going on, there are remedies to that situation. I'm not the most informed voter out there (most people don't), but I take the time to understand the basics and hope for the best on election day.

[Kalhoun]

I'm not the most informed voter out there (most people don't),

Well, I mean't "aren't". Duh. :smack:

[scule]

I don’t think even the most strident vote Nazi is going to try to force anyone to vote. The general sentiment is that you should be informed, and participate. If you choose not to because you’re too lazy to get informed, don’t vote because you’re polluting the system with ignorance. If you are informed and choose not to vote, however, don’t expect me to sympathize with you when you aren’t happy with the results. Even if things don’t go your way with whoever you elected, you still have other avenues through which to voice your complaints. I support the writing of letters if upset about results, or any form of free speech protest (non-violent of course). But voting is the primary action in the exercising of free speech.

Ever have a friend who bitches about their life but does nothing to improve it? The one with no education who complains about his job but won’t get a degree or diploma or something (excusing of course people in compromising situations who can’t reasonably do so). Or the one with the fat ass who bitches about her weight while reaching for that bag of chips and the Hagen Daas. If they wanted to, they could change things, but they don’t, so they really shouldn’t complain.

It’s similar with those who apathetically choose not to vote. You are walking down a path, and come to a Y intersection. You can choose to go one way or the other, you can even read all about the expected outcomes of either choice if you want, but one way or the other you will end up down one of those paths because the one you are on is about to disappear. So if you make the choice not to choose, you will be swept along one or the other anyway. Even if you are well-informed of the options but cannot choose one over the other because both are equally execrable to you, you will still be swept onto one of them. Along comes a tide of voters on the path, and they catch you up in their arms and carry you off down one of the paths. You eventually become disenchanted with their choice, and start to complain. You knew the end of the former path was coming, you knew it was one or the other, yet you made no effort to influence your direction. Why should I or anyone else give two shits about your complaints if you made no effort to set your path? I made my choice, and now I am observing the results. If I am displeased, I make another choice the next time the branch comes. In the meantime, I can express my disapproval in various ways, including the aforementioned letter-writing. Or I can protest. Or I can attempt to run for office myself. There are various means for expressing disapproval for a candidate or government, but the fundamental basis for this expression is in the voting booth. Choosing not to says that you choose to ignore that, so I’m going to ignore you when you complain.

Of course, I am well aware that it is difficult to pick a good candidate. We (in Canada) are likely to have an election coming up soon and it’s definitely going to be a negative choice because of the sad state of the opposition right now. That said, if I do not begin with making that fundamental first expression, how will anything change ever? After years of mismanagement from the PCs under Mulroney, the people blew them away with a massive Liberal majority that sent the message that they were unhappy with the PCs. If you want to see change, you have to start there. Now the PCs don’t even exist, and the new party they’re struggling to put together is desperate for some good press. The people spoke, through the polls, and the party has been forced to change. Go and get informed, go and vote, and only through greater participation will true change occur, because apathy breeds the status quo.

[Kimstu]

EM: A vote Nazi would conclude that I was practicing sufficient civic behavior in the former instance and should have been censored in the latter.

I think you've got yourself a straw Vote Nazi there. I cannot imagine why anybody who cares about involved citizenship would "censor" you for writing letters to newspapers criticizing policy. As I already said, I have a lot more respect for people who are politically engaged, even if they don't vote, than for people who just don't care.

And most of us self-proclaimed Vote Nazis here have admitted quite freely that simply pulling a lever in a voting booth without having any clue about the issues does not an informed or engaged citizen make. I can't see anything wrong with commending you for your "sufficient civic behavior" in voting for your chosen candidate based on his stated positions on the issues, even if he dishonestly abandoned those positions after being elected. Not even Vote Nazis require you to be clairvoyant before you vote.

AOB: You truly believe in that pap, don’t you.

:rolleyes: Geez, why do so many "Vote Nihilists" get so defensive and
angry even when we Vote Nazis are merely saying calmly and politely that we think citizens of a democracy have a duty to be politically involved? Why so touchy? What's so terrible about my disagreeing with you about what your citizenship responsibilities entail? I certainly respect your right to act in accordance with your opinion, even if I don't have much respect for the opinion itself. I can't see why that should piss you off so much. If I were really loading you into cattle cars (good one, CK :) ) and shipping you off to execution, I could understand it.

Whether or not you live in a safe electoral district (Local, State, Federal) for one party faction or other, has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, you have no political power worth a damn?

Of course it has: maybe, just maybe, I don't. I certainly don't believe that my individual vote is statistically important enough to decide any electoral contest (except maybe the smallest of small local races; I have heard of one-vote winning margins, but realistically, they're incredibly rare). On the other hand, my activities as an informed and engaged citizen, a la EM's letter-writing, may well have some non-negligible political effect. It would be stupid and cowardly to give up doing what I believe to be the right thing just because I can't measure how much effect it has overall.

Has it occurred to you that maybe a more accurate description of the system of government you describe as a “republic” (the long-winded title being a: “Constitutional Republic”) would be: “Elective Dictatorship”

No, because "Elective Dictatorship" seems to me like a silly contradiction in terms. Real dictators don't have elections, or at least are never removed from power by them. I have seen plenty of elected officials removed from power by the voters.

in which the subjects have:
No power or to approve proposed new laws or regulations.

Leaving aside direct popular referenda which do involve that power to some extent, I still don't consider that having a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy means that the voters have no say in what laws get enacted.

No power to repeal laws or regulations.

See above.

No power to penalise or restrain the rulers, elected or otherwise, or their agents for abuses of power.

Except to elect somebody else, which quite often does penalize an official.

And the winning party faction can (and does) basically what it pleases for most of the term of its office).

You know, if you had less lofty disdain for politics, you might actually pay attention to the details of legislative and elective activity long enough to realize that (especially at the state and local level) there often is quite a bit of compromise between minority and majority positions. I don't say that majorities never spit in the face of bipartisanship (esp. perhaps in the current federal government), but it is by no means universal or inevitable.

I take it that after casting your vote at an election you feel a warm glow of satisfaction at a job well done.

Actually, what I mostly feel is mild satisfaction tempered with unhappiness about the numerous and dismaying flaws that are unquestionably still rife in our political system. However, I know that sitting around apathetically and cynically sneering about those flaws will accomplish even less than making efforts to fix them, however insignificant or futile some of those efforts may be.

[Ex Machina]

You DO have a duty to vote... Duty is simply what you should be doing. You don't have to...you just should.Duty is an obligation or a requirement, not an option. No one has a duty to vote in a popular election. This is a clearly fallacious myth perpetuated by Vote Nazis. The feeling that someone "should" vote is a personal opinion. No one has the right to pass judgment on another person's decision to not vote.

And the reason it is upsetting for Vote Nazis to say "if you don't vote you don't have a right to have your opinion heard" is because it is a false, un-American, fascistic statement which seeks to inhibit the liberty of fellow citizens. This is a serious matter concerning free political discourse. It is an attempt by self-righteous people to intimidate and guilt people into silence.

[silenus]

Of course, I am biased. But I have to support the "moral duty" faction. Declining to participate in your government because you don't think you make a difference, or because you are uninformed, or because you are throwing a hissy fit, is just plain stupid. Every vote counts. More so at a local level than nationally, but it still counts. If you don't like any of the selections, write in None of the Above is Acceptable. If you are willing to accept the benefits of citizenship, then you should be willing to accept the responsibilities of citizenship. All the Vote-Nihilists (love thet description, by the way!) are just parasites, willing to take without giving back. Citizenship requires WORK, dammit! If you don't know about the issues, then force your representatives to educate you.

AOB: No power, huh. Tell that to the people of California, who just threw out the most incompetent and corrupt governor we had ever had. No comment on what we replaced him with, mind you. But no power? I don't think so! The initiative process is a way for the people to act directly. That is why old-line party politicians hate it so much. Sounds to me like you are just lazy...like any number of my students. You want everything handed to you on a plate, then you complain that it isn't the flavor you wanted. Bah.

[Ex Machina]

I want to make this very clear. I enjoy voting. When I feel the need to express my view on a subject, when I feel that one candidate has answers to problems, I exercise my right to suffrage. Sometimes when I stiil feel the flush of patriotism I witness to non-voters and tell them of the struggles of the common man over human history to have a say in his own destiny rather than forever being subject to tyrants and dictators. But I have never felt like calling these people who refrained from public elections as "stupid" or "parasites".

As a citizen you have only one obligation. That is to obey the laws of the land. If you do this then you should be exempt from the derogation of others. I welcome hearing the opinions of non-voters.

I am appalled at the hatred directed at people who aren't playing the game the way the Vote Nazis want it to be played.

[Flash-57]

The thing is that we are currently living in good times, relatively speaking. Yeah, there are problems splashed across the news every day, but they aren't really problems that affect our daily lives. Sure, we are at war, but it's not like we have food rationing or are losing 5,000 troops a day. Yeah, there is terrorism, but not to the point where we have serious concern leaving our homes.

So, the ship is sailing as smoothly as can be expected. And when the ship is in smooth waters, it really doesn't matter who is steering. In other words, almost anybody can be president during good times. So, it's not really a big deal if people don't vote during good times.

On the other hand, consider the numbers. Let's say we have a voting population of 100 million. During times of apathy, 10% of the people vote and a candidate wins with 50% of the vote, while the loser gets 45%. That leaves only 4.5 million citizens unhappy.

Yet, if 80% of the voters turned out, and we saw the same 50%-45% win, we'd have 36 million unhappy citizens.

[silenus]

cit·i·zen·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st-zn-shp)
n.
The status of a citizen with its attendant duties, rights, and privileges.



You stand on your rights, demand your privileges, and shirk your duties. As a citizen you have many more obligations than just to follow the laws of the land. In fact, you have a moral duty to NOT follow the laws when those laws are unjust. Or did you forget whose holiday was yesterday?

I stand by my "parasite" observation.

[suranyi]

I figure if there are some races you just don't know/don't care about (for example, many city, county, and state positions) then you should get the voting endorsements of a newspaper or other source that you trust to make a good recommendation (keeping in mind the biases of the source, of course) and vote that way.

That's generally what I do. However, there are some races that are so low-profile that even the newspapers don't publish endorsements. There was an election in our Parks and Recreation district for which I never saw any of the candidates names in the paper at all. And I read the paper every day.

Ed

[CarnalK]

scule(and various others paraphrased) said
If you are informed and choose not to vote, however, don’t expect me to sympathize with you when you aren’t happy with the results.

Who wants your sympathy? I'm not offering mine when the guy you elect turns around and does the opposite of what he promised.

What I expect is you to listen to informed opinions whether they come from a voter or not.

Or don't, who cares. ;)

[Ex Machina]

cit·i·zen·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st-zn-shp)
n.
The status of a citizen with its attendant duties, rights, and privileges.

You stand on your rights, demand your privileges, and shirk your duties. As a citizen you have many more obligations than just to follow the laws of the land. In fact, you have a moral duty to NOT follow the laws when those laws are unjust. Or did you forget whose holiday was yesterday?

I stand by my "parasite" observation.First of all I don't know who "you" is supposed to refer to. Second, your dictionary definition of 'citizenship' doesn't suppot a contention that voting is a duty. Third, your intentionally distractive drift toward the subject of civil disobedience is irrelevant to the distinction between rights and obligations . Society requires people to obey laws but doesn't require people to exercise rights.

The idea that people "should" vote is still an opinion unless anyone can show legally and factually that it is a required duty of citizenship. And if this can not be proven then the people who insult and disparage abstaining citizens who are living decent and honorable American lives are guilty of slander and intimidation.

If a man stands before a public forum and expresses his political opinion, and another person stands in opposition announcing before all that the man is a stupid, ignorant parasite who has no right to speak or criticize and is less of a citizen because he has not fulfilled his civic duty to vote, then the first is perfectly in line with American ideals of freedom of speech. But the second person is out of line and is acting contrary to the cherished ideals of free public discourse.

Everyone has the right to express opinions, but when your opinion is that other people should be denied their rights to express their opinions then you are engaging in irrational contradictions.

To tell people that voting is a civic duty is either a mistaken opinion or a blatant lie. Either way it is doing a disservice to people trying to understand our political system.

True statement: "I think it makes for a healthy society when many citizens are informed and active in the electoral process and no eligible citizen is denied the right to participate."

False statement: "Voting is a requirement so if you don't vote you have no right to complain."

I hope that American teachers are not forgetting the difference.

[Kimstu]

EM: And the reason it is upsetting for Vote Nazis to say "if you don't vote you don't have a right to have your opinion heard" is because it is a false, un-American, fascistic statement which seeks to inhibit the liberty of fellow citizens. [...] It is an attempt by self-righteous people to intimidate and guilt people into silence. [...]

I am appalled at the hatred directed at people who aren't playing the game the way the Vote Nazis want it to be played. [...]

If a man stands before a public forum and expresses his political opinion, and another person stands in opposition announcing before all that the man is a stupid, ignorant parasite who has no right to speak or criticize and is less of a citizen because he has not fulfilled his civic duty to vote [...]

I still think that this is rather overheated rhetoric, directed more at a straw Vote Nazi than at what the self-identified Vote Nazis here are actually saying.

We are not saying, "If you don't vote every chance you get, then you have forfeited your right to free speech and your opinions ought to be suppressed." What we're saying is more along the lines of "It's part of a citizen's duty to be (at least somewhat) informed and active politically, and that generally includes voting. If you are chronically apathetic and ignorant about electoral issues, then your complaining about electoral results comes across as lazy whining."

Now, if you really are being persecuted elsewhere in your life by fundamentalist extremist Vote Nazis who seriously try to suppress the opinions of anybody who happens not to show up at the polls one year, you have my support and sympathy. But I haven't seen evidence of such persecution on this thread.

Sometimes when I stiil feel the flush of patriotism I witness to non-voters and tell them of the struggles of the common man over human history to have a say in his own destiny rather than forever being subject to tyrants and dictators.

Hey, welcome to the club. :) That's where most real-life Vote Nazis are coming from too, as far as my experience goes.

[scule]

What I expect is you to listen to informed opinions whether they come from a voter or not.

Or don't, who cares. ;)

Why should I, or anyone else who has made the effort, listen? We did what we could to influence the direction of our lives, you didn't (not literally you, but you in the generic "someone who didn't vote" sense). So why should I care what you have to say when you don't take care of yourself first?

Kimstu has it right, no one is likely to say that anyone should lose their right to free speech just because they don't vote, what we're saying is that one has more credibility when one participates in the process. It's all well and good to say that you are informed but choose not to choose (a candidate), but unless you make an effort to affect a change in your life through the most fundamental means available to you, I just can't respect your complaints, since you had your chance. Like I said, apathy breeds the status quo, and all the letter writing and protesting in the world cannot hold a candle to the casting of one ballot.

[Ex Machina]

one has more credibility when one participates in the processRight. It takes a genius to mark a ballot. Or is it the act of voting which bestows sociopolitical omniscience?

I once voted in a referendum to amend the state constitution. The question on the ballot was phrased in convoluted legalese. There was a dipsy-do in the middle so that if you were for amendment you voted "no" and if against amendment you were to vote "yes". I had to read it three times before the meaning was clear to me. After the vote I asked five co-workers what their view was and how they had voted. (I already knew they had the same political bent as me.) All five voted the opposite of what they intended.

It's just a fantasy. You think it makes you special and you can only feel special if you make other people feel insignificant.

Think about it. You people who push the vote are the very people who can't understand that voting is not a duty! YOU are not credible. If you cannot be trusted to understand the difference between rights and duties, how can you be trusted to render decisions on complicated issues?

[horhay_achoa]

I don't vote, and I don't complain. I don't complain because, for the most part, I don't care. I don't care because usually the winner of an election disappoints around ½ the people. If the other person won, the other ½ of the people would be disappointed. I almost registered to vote in the Philly mayoral election because the republican candidate wanted to get rid of the city wage tax, but then I found out he wanted to raise some other tax. Net gain to me? Zero.
I just live my life. The way I see it things aren't to bad now the way it flops back and forth from Republican to Democrat every once in a while. IMO, if either one of those parties ever won a considerable amount of elections in a row, the whole country would go to hell.

[Alan Owes Bess]

originally posted by Silenus
bah.

Boo.

Having a particular elected dictator dismissed, thanks to a rule of politics that applies to one particular jurisdiction, proves nothing.

The laws imposed on the people, before and after the regime change, will continue to be imposed and fresh ones will be passed whether or not the majority of the people approve of those laws.

Your error is in believing that those politicos who have been elected as “representatives” of the people really act in accordance with the will of the people.

They do not. Apart from good old “Election Day” the people have no power of any consequence.

You proudly claim to be, government teacher. From my standpoint you are probably misleading your very young, trusting and unworldly students in your Civics class by trying to convince them that by some strange kind of telepathy, telekinesis, or political alchemy the will of the people somehow makes itself manifest in the political process simply by virtue of the fact that they have each exercised their right to cast a vote for some politico or other in an election that is held from time to time.

I have on previous threads given a summary of how the will of the people could be ascertained with a high degree of accuracy. You don’t need an expensive referendum, just a small group of the people chosen at random from the electoral roll. A jury of 5 men and 5 women to act as representatives of the people to consider and decide on proposed legislation, point by point. The politico (for whom it will be illegal to refer to him or her self as a “representative”) being obliged by law to act in accordance with the jury’s wishes. (The politico’s compliance with the jury’s wishes to be matter judged entirely by the jury in question, not a court).

Ah yes, you might say, some of these bills run to half a million words, and we need someone with the intelligence of an expert professional politician, such as the alcohol brain damaged Senator Ted Kennedy to consider them carefully.

That is nonsense, of course.

The USA also has about 180,000 pages of regulations in the federal sphere alone, to help oil the wheels of government.

In my opinion, that is insane. No law needs to be longer than an easily digestible 2 to 4 thousand words in length. Ideally, there should be an upper limit imposed by any constitution on the amount of legislative verbiage that can exist at any given moment.

Perhaps a maximum limit of 6 million statutes of no more than 10,000 words each could be set. Peru has already exceeded that limit. No one knows what the law is in that country, but I’m sure it must cover everything in the known universe by now.

Because I regard the present system as a transparent fraud (but, I agree, more subtle than the obsolete Divine Right of Kings fraud) you accuse me of laziness. I don’t believe you have the imagination to understand how powerless the average elector is in his or her ability to influence government policy at any level.

However, you should at least be able to understand the utter pointlessness of someone voting in an election if they reside in a district where one party or another cannot lose.

In such circumstances, unless one has a casual stamp collecting kind of interest in politics, it is not a rational activity to: -

Vote in such an election (whether for or against the party you prefer is immaterial).
Acquaint yourself with local political issues.
Acquaint yourself with the local political “representative”.

Perhaps if you had been born, raised and educated in a different age, you might have been a believer in the Divine right of kings, the sole practical purpose of which was to try to solve the problem of continuity of government by establishing rules of succession and to maintain stability. Don’t knock it too much. It was the best they had for a long time, but having lots of wars of succession was the main bugbear.

By the time it became more than 80% successful at the smooth succession task – mid 1800’s – it had become irrelevant, having been replaced by the elective dictatorship model. (I lump together the Village Headman model – where one man is deemed fit to govern a country – the USA, France, and most South American Countries - and the parliamentary style, Council of Village Elders model, committee of elected dictators. A distinction with no difference).

You have dutifully and faithfully swallowed everything that has been fed to you on the generously heaped plate handed to you by your mentors, from the time you were the age of your current group of young students, or before, until your graduation from whatever Arts faculty you attended.

All I have done is question the validity of similar pap fed to me from an early age about what is so often incorrectly referred to as “democracy”.

You may call me lazy for refusing to act as though I believed in the pap fed to me, but I’ll refrain from calling you something in return.

[Alan Owes Bess]

originally posted by Kimstu
why do so many "Vote Nihilists" get so defensive and angry even when we Vote Nazis are merely saying calmly and politely that we think citizens of a democracy have a duty to be politically involved. Why so touchy?

I am not angry or defensive at all. You are free to hold on to any and all beliefs that provide you with maximum comfort.

No, because "Elective Dictatorship" seems to me like a silly contradiction in terms.

You say “it seems to you”. Where does the contradiction manifest itself?

Under a system where a President has real, not symbolic political power, a President would normally have the power that a village headman traditionally exercised, not just over a village, but over a whole country. for a specified term of office. The people then have no further say in how he (yes HE 99% of the time) governs that polity.

That is the essence of dictatorship. A periodic election does make it sweeter.

Except to elect somebody else, which quite often does penalize an official.

Yes, that happens sometimes.
That proves what?
That the people rule?
It is to laugh.

[silenus]

Where to begin?

AOB: I ask you this - since you obviously don't think the present system is adequate, What are you doing to fix it?

Because I haven't seen your face at the barricades lately. If voting doesn't change anything, then what will and why aren't you doing it, instead of just whining? Voting works, whether you say so or not. This country evolves politically through the voting booth, and it serves to keep the radical extremes in check. A brief glance at the history of the last 100 years in this country shows that. If you aren't satisfied with the district you live in - move! Vote with your feet. If all you can do is complain that you have a better system, and that The Man keeps you down, and you don't do anything about it....then you are the parasite I accused you of being. Put up or shut up.

[Kimstu]

AOB: Under a system where a President has real, not symbolic political power, a President would normally have the power that a village headman traditionally exercised, not just over a village, but over a whole country. for a specified term of office. The people then have no further say in how he (yes HE 99% of the time) governs that polity.

That is the essence of dictatorship.

That's a fairly bizarre definition of dictatorship you've got there: "the power that a village headman traditionally exercised". :confused: Which village? Which headman? Exactly what "traditional" society are we talking about here, and why should we accept a vague allusion to its unspecified customs as a functional definition of dictatorship in a modern democracy?

Yes, that [i.e., electoral removal of an elected officia] happens sometimes.
That proves what?
That the people rule?

That the voters exercise some control over the governance process, which is part of what you seem to be denying, against a lot of reasonable and factual arguments to the contrary.

I have on previous threads given a summary of how the will of the people could be ascertained with a high degree of accuracy. You don’t need an expensive referendum, just a small group of the people chosen at random from the electoral roll. A jury of 5 men and 5 women to act as representatives of the people to consider and decide on proposed legislation, point by point. The politico (for whom it will be illegal to refer to him or her self as a “representative”) being obliged by law to act in accordance with the jury’s wishes.

:eek: But that is positively nutty, on so many levels. In the first place, haven't you heard of the "small sample size" problem in statistical sampling? Ten individuals just isn't a large enough number to represent a large population with "a high degree of accuracy" or even a moderate degree of accuracy. In such a small sample, general trends are easily obscured by small random fluctuations.

In the second place, even if you somehow did get an adequately representative cross-section of the population at large with your mere ten individuals, how are they supposed to be deciding on legislation? By consensus? By majority vote? How is that necessarily fairer than what we've got now? Moreover, how much time are they supposed to be devoting to this "considering and deciding on" all proposed legislation? Isn't that basically a full-time job? How are we going to compensate them? Is the public at large going to be willing to be included in this random public-service lottery? If not, do we limit participation only to those who have expressed willingness to serve? Won't that skew the representation? And how do we ensure that these ten individuals will be making informed and conscientious decisions instead of just selling their votes to the fattest lobbyist bankrolls? They won't even have the frail safeguard of accountability to the electorate to help keep them honest.

In the third place, if all these people are doing is "considering and deciding upon proposed legislation", who's writing and proposing the legislation? Still the same old "politicos", right? So these random "representatives" can't do anything but rubber-stamp one choice or another, while all the available choices are still coming from the same old flawed and abused system.

And this is the brilliant new policy that you feel entitles you to look loftily down your nose at the rest of us poor shmoes who are still kludging along with sorry old representative democracy? Why, your system retains all the flaws of the current system while adding some more of its own. This is just about loony enough to shift you from the category of Pragmatic Vote Nihilist into the one of Out-and-Out Crank.

[Kimstu]

(Turning with relief to the saner criticisms of an actual Pragmatic Vote Nihilist... )

h_a: I don't vote, and I don't complain. I don't complain because, for the most part, I don't care. I don't care because usually the winner of an election disappoints around 1/2 the people. If the other person won, the other 1/2 of the people would be disappointed. [...] I just live my life. The way I see it things aren't [too] bad now the way it flops back and forth from Republican to Democrat every once in a while.

Fair enough, but why do you think that is? Is it because the system is inherently immune to catastrophic misgovernance or other forms of getting "too bad"? (Thank you, Founding Fathers, eh? :) ) Or is it at least partly because a lot of other people are putting in the time and effort to make informed choices and exercise influence responsibly and throw the bums out and all that jazz? I'm glad you're fairly content with the system even if you don't participate in it, but I think that to some extent you may be freeloading on the efforts of those who do participate.

IMO, if either one of those parties ever won a considerable amount of elections in a row, the whole country would go to hell.

Well, if that does happen (and IMO the current one-party dominance in the federal government is bringing us uncomfortably close to such a dangerous imbalance), I hope you'll reconsider your Vote Nihilism.

[duffer]

Considering all the apparatti in the US gov't, as well as the history of the country, and piling on the fact that the world (and ESPECIALLY the economy) doesn't move at the same speed of Google, does anyone honestly believe that one single person can wreck the country? I hated Clinton, but I had comfort that no matter what he did, we weren't going tits up.

[horhay_achoa]

(Turning with relief to the saner criticisms of an actual Pragmatic Vote Nihilist... )

h_a: I don't vote, and I don't complain. I don't complain because, for the most part, I don't care. I don't care because usually the winner of an election disappoints around 1/2 the people. If the other person won, the other 1/2 of the people would be disappointed. [...] I just live my life. The way I see it things aren't [too] bad now the way it flops back and forth from Republican to Democrat every once in a while.

Fair enough, but why do you think that is? Is it because the system is inherently immune to catastrophic misgovernance or other forms of getting "too bad"? (Thank you, Founding Fathers, eh? :) ) Or is it at least partly because a lot of other people are putting in the time and effort to make informed choices and exercise influence responsibly and throw the bums out and all that jazz? I'm glad you're fairly content with the system even if you don't participate in it, but I think that to some extent you may be freeloading on the efforts of those who do participate.

True. I guess you could look at it that way. I understand that the system would not work if no one voted, but I don't really consider it freeloading either. There will always be people that want to vote. I don't feel like I am freeloading off of them if they want to vote, and if they don't want to vote because they are "carrying my weight", then 1) I think that's a stupid reason not to vote if you really want to, and 2) fine with me. :o

IMO, if either one of those parties ever won a considerable amount of elections in a row, the whole country would go to hell.

Well, if that does happen (and IMO the current one-party dominance in the federal government is bringing us uncomfortably close to such a dangerous imbalance), I hope you'll reconsider your Vote Nihilism.

I might decide to vote if things turn really bad, or if a person takes a really radical stance on something that I believe in (or am firmly against). Most of the candidates now though take a middle ground wishy washy stance that wont make that much of a difference once their term in office is over. That's just my opinion of course, but things always seem OK to me no matter who is elected. Never great, and never terrible....just OK. Always people complaining and always people praising. ½ happy. ½ pissed.

[Kimstu]

In the words of the Master, "No need to be so reasonable about it." :)