Quick note for all those who were so disillusioned with the system that they didn’t vote because they didn’t feel there was anyone they could honestly advocate in any sort of proactive manner: Spoilt ballots are counted and registered. That is all.
I agree with Legomancer. The reason people are so quick to point out that they voted is because they want to be praised for doing so. Otherwise, it would be totally irrational to vote, because there is a cost to vote but there is no clear benefit. And I’ve got proof voters are seeking praise-
But I’ve never said I agreed with their approach. All I’m saying is the mere act of not voting does not make a person’s opinions unworthy. They might not be doing any good, but is the ultimate “goodness” of the vote or lack of vote the deciding factor of worthiness? Who decides the criteria for goodness? Is all voting “good”? What if a person votes for an absolute lunatic? Is that an inherently better action than not voting? The vote for a lunatic arguably doesn’t accomplish a social good.
If there is only a Republican running is a Green bad for not voting? Are we honestly going to establish an arbitrary standard that says going and writing in “Mickey Mouse” is better? Because that’s all it is, an arbitrary definition of the “proper” decision. Some people who don’t vote do it because voting would violate their conscience. They are not physically harming anybody, so why are they bad?
My point isn’t to argue that those who refuse to vote are right, it’s to argue that those who arbitrarily define the act of voting as right and others as wrong aren’t right either. A person who refused to listen to the economics professor I mentioned earlier simply because he didn’t vote is making an indefensibly arbitrary decision. That’s all I’m saying. Judge people on the merits. Just because somebody doesn’t have the same view of voting as you doesn’t mean you should disregard them automatically.
Here’s a question that’s been bugging me for the last couple of days: What’s the point of having an election if there’s only one person running for an office? That really bothers me when there’s not even a write-in space underneath the circle for the only candidate.
Then vote for someone who will work to change the system. If that person is a third party candidate or a write in, then so be it.
If you are really fed up and nobody running suits your fancy, then run for office yourself. Knock on doors, colllect signatures to get yourself on the ballot, get your friends and family to hand out pamphlets in support of your campaign.
There is always SOMETHING you can do.
If you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Again, non-voters, don’t listen to the “It’s your duty to vote” types. Stand by your principals! Don’t let yourselves be sullied by the system. Stay pure!
You can gloat about your pristine cleanliness and I can remain smug in the knowlege that my vote can completely change your life and circumstances.
Fenris
Even though it almost certainly won’t?
Heh. Right now, in the district where I live, less than 250 votes seperate the two candidates for Congress.
Two hundred and fifty. That’s less than the number of regular posters on the SDMB.
Ok, I’ll grant that this is an iffy example as one of 'em is one of the biggest morons out there and one of 'em is pure sleeze, but the point is a tiny number people control whether all the “Too pure to vote” types have to live with the moron or the sleeze based in part on who I choose.
I have a definite preference. I’m certain, given their opposite views on a number of hot-button issues that the “too pure to vote” types would too, at least to the extent of liking one or the other of them less.
But they’ve given me the power to make the decision for them. And they’ll have to live with it. This isn’t a feeble attempt at reverse psychology: I’d be much happier if more people chose freely not to vote.* Let 'em bitch all they want (I strongly disagree with the OP) You wanna give me some percentage more power for the right to bitch? Fair trade.
Fenris
*No, I do NOT want voter supression. I just don’t think it’s a good trade-off to convince “too pure to vote” types to vote.
Let me ask a question I haven’t seen addressed in this thread.
This is directed towards anyone who said (paraphrasing) “I didn’t vote in the election because I don’t know enough about the candidates. Would you rather have had someone ignorant of the issues go in and fill in bubbles at random?”
If you believe that you are truly ignorant of the issues, if you couldn’t take the time to learn about the issues, find out where the candidates stand on those issues, so that you can go in and vote intelligently, how can you complain?
How can you complain about the system?
How can you complain about the policies of America?
You just admited that you are too ignorant to research the issues and then vote on the issues. Doesn’t that automatically mean you are also too ignorant to debate those issues? To even complain about those issues?
Actually, I didn’t like the more local candidates: state Senate, state House, etcetera.
My symbolic gesture was to refuse to vote specifically for those unopposed state legislature candidates. I’m not going to vote for somebody whose opinions or platform I oppose, even if they are running unopposed. If it makes me a better citizen, next election I’ll take Michael Moore’s suggestion and vote ficus or take SenorBeef’s suggestion and vote Mickey Mouse. It would be less abhorrent than voting for some state legislature candidates.
Lieberman is Jewish and actively promotes it, and it’s not a secret that McCain is Episcopalian, but often attends a Baptist church. (link)
I don’t think that quite follows, Ender. Ignorance of the issues means just that, lack of information. Apathy, OTOH, is what you’re talking about here, as in, “I don’t care enough to make the effort to learn about the issues.”
Yeah?
It could be argued that this argument doesn’t quite work either, since I don’t know nearly enough about the internal combustion engine driven automobile to really understand how it works, yet I’m pretty damned sure I wouldn’t enjoy being run over by one. And if one did run me over, and I bitched about it, and someone pointed out that what I thought was a Chrysler was, in fact, a Ford, so what am I doing even talking about it, I’m also pretty sure I’d smack him one in the puss.
But since that’s a really lame analogy, forget it. 
[sub]I was serious about that first bit, though.[/sub]
I usually skip the offices on the ballot where there’s only one candidate and no write-in spot. What’s the point? Why isn’t EVERY
uncontested spot on the ballot provided with a write-in spot?
Even if you believe that they’re all liars, cheats, dimwits, whatever;you need to write someone else’s name in as a protest against BIG POLITICS giving you no real choices. you also need to do your part to thwart ballot initiatives that seek to deprive you of rights and/or property.
Only about 50% of registered voters or 20% of all persons eligible to register and vote showed up at this election.
If even 1/4 of those who didn’t vote showed up to write-in senile relatives, dimwit in-laws, lazy nominally-adult perpetual children, etc., it would be a blow to the winners’ egos that as many people thought the worst of their relatives could do a better job of public stewardship than any professional politician could.
If that same 1/4 of traditional non-voters got together and sponsored alternative candidates in each race, BIG POLTICS’ monopoly could be broken.
It would be nice if one of the lesser-of-2-evils voting robots would address Tretiak’s earlier rhetorical:
“A rhetorical question to the extreme. Person A knows all about the issues, engages in debate with friends and family. Actually works for groups promoting certain agendas. Has actually well founded opinons on the issues and even the candidates, but doesn’t vote. Person B sits around all day watching SportsCenter, hads a vague idea and opinion about the issues, but gets off his ass to vote. Which person is a better participant in democracy?”
To all those who say spoiling a ballot or a write-in candidate is a better protest- when was the last time stats of either was reported on national broadcast? Meanwhile we always see commentators lamenting the voter turn out and that it might be caused by discontent with the system. It seems pretty clear to me which protest gets better air time.
Vote for someone who will change the system? To stretch Fenris’s strained analogy a little further: You can’t clean the dishes if there’s no water in the sink.
Even if this is true (which is not at all clear) it is irrelevant. You are not 50,000 people, and your decision to vote or not vote has no impact on the decisions of the other 49,999. Therefore your not having voted cannot be said to have had an impact on the prevailing political situation, and your complaining rights are fully intact.
“”""""""""""Care to explain how NOT VOTING is a conscientious decision?
Explain to me, if you would, how it sends ANY STATEMENT or makes a difference of any kind."""""""""""
It’s sending a message to clean up the act yourselves before the issue becomes inflamatory. You do realize that there is zero point to vote until the transparency of the system is even established at laughable levels don’t you?
There is almost 100% non-transparency in the US vote system (there is always unreasonable doubt to consider). It’s just not there, by any standard of rationality. Instead of being a moron and voting in this system and then accusing people who don’t vote in this illegal system of not having the right to demand transparency; why don’t you join civilized society?
Stop being a nitwit and yelling at people for not participating in a necessarily corrupt voting process. People have been getting shot dead for mentioning that reciepts should be issued for paper ballots for over 50 years. Crawl out of your hole and welcome to life. This OP and the ensuing responses are trolls by default. The system is so non-transparent that the topic is MOOT.
-Justhink
“”""""""“The simple fact is that, with the political system in the United States there is a mechanism for enacting change and that system is the ability to vote.”"""""""""
You’ve been watching waaaaaaaay too much TV. How about:
a.) observing that your vote was counted
b.) that your vote was counted with the exact pool of all other voters (no extra dead people, household pets etc…)
c.) observing that once this has occurred, the most votes effects the outcome such that the most popular vote elects the bill or the government official into the actual utility designated by the bill or seat.
I didn’t see any of that mentioned in ‘the ability to vote’.
Have you ever heard the quote: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything.” ?
Quibbling about our current election details is a complete waste of time given the circumstances which are clearly outlined in regards to the absurd non-transparency of our election process.
It’s like talking about football plays when nobody has ever watched a football game in their life; but only hear about it on radio! You can’t go to a stadium to watch the game, you can’t walk into the radio station; BUT you get to shake the hands of these outstanding atheletes! Grow a brain!
-Justhink
Well, we agree. There are always things that can be done. My point is that voting is not the only thing.
It’s simple: telling people that they can’t complain if they don’t vote is stupid. You might think voting is great, but that’s your view of participation, it’s not the only valid position to take. That’s all I’m saying.
I’ve tried to answer the objections raised, but now I have a question for some other posters. Several people have said that you should write in a candidate instead of not voting. I’d like to hear an argument as to why that is, practically, any better than not voting. And I’d like to hear an argument that doesn’t assume the conclusion – don’t say it’s better to vote, therefore it’s better to vote.
I vote. But I’ve yet to see anybody make a good argument for a universal rule that voting is always better. I’ve seen a lot of people who think it’s usually better to vote or it’s better to write in a candidate or do other actions, but those generally come down to personal opinion. I have no problem with that opinion, but I haven’t seen a compelling reason why that preference should be a universal rule.
I have argued that there are valid reasons why some people don’t vote. Is anybody still arguing that there is never a valid reason for not voting?
I’m not so hot on the voting thing myself, because most politicans are lying, evil pondscum, but i just have to say that in my district, two people running for state senate were separated by only SEVEN votes. So, they did a recount, and now one candidate has been declared the winner…by a SINGLE vote. So, in this case, one person’s vote really did matter.
One guy on my city council won by one vote.
I voted for him. 
Of course, I live in a very small town, where the chances of one vote making a difference are larger.
I, too, would like to see a response to Tretiak’s question, as reposted above by CarnalK. Voting’s all well and good, but it is hardly the only way to make a difference.
And hey, one more hypothetical: If I don’t vote myself, but I talk five of my friends into voting, do I get to complain? Do I get to complain five times as much as anyone else?