# I don't vote...get over it! **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 5, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665 "2004-10-05T16:41:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/101 "2004-10-07T15:31:12Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > …and you might want to warn people about that picture. “Iraqi **dead, murder** of” isn’t a warning? I hope no one thought that they’d see bunnies and rainbows if they clicked on the link. Then again, since people are acting like it’s all bunnies and rainbows over there, some probably did. > [@Mehitabel](#): > > It’s not ‘obscene’, I guess, but should it be one click away? Yeah, it’s one click away. Your voting booth makes a clicking sound too. Well, many. My point is that everyone who voted for Bush the last time, as well as everyone who voted for Nader and who didn’t vote, is **directly** responsible for that dead girl. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/102 "2004-10-07T16:19:53Z")
There’s a flap over republicans accusing Michael Moore of bribing voters. He’s offered slackers clean underwear and ramen if they’ll vote. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/103 "2004-10-07T16:40:50Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > “Iraqi **dead, murder** of” isn’t a warning? I hope no one thought that they’d see bunnies and rainbows if they clicked on the link. Then again, since people are acting like it’s all bunnies and rainbows over there, some probably did. > > No. From a journalist you expect an article, not a picture. > > Yeah, it’s one click away. Your voting booth makes a clicking sound too. Well, many. > > You do know you’re not supposed to post non-work-or-family-friendly links at least two clicks away, right? > > My point is that everyone who voted for Bush the last time, as well as everyone who voted for Nader and who didn’t vote, is **directly** responsible for that dead girl. :rolleyes: Nope, it’s because she lived under a murderous lying dictator who antagonized the free world and got taken down for it. If she was indeed killed by an American bomb (any proof it wasn’t a car bomb by one of her own people?) then it was an accident. Saddam threw children in jail on purpose. It was fine when they died there, in the dark, where we couldn’t see them, right? It wasn’t a sovereign nation, it was a Mafia fiefdom run by a corrupt clan. I voted for Gore but I was for the war, thinking that the WMD info now proved wrong was true. but think Bush has screwed up the peace so I’m voting for somebody whom the Iraqis will respect more. If the majority of voters disagree with me, I’ll live with it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/104 "2004-10-07T17:04:15Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > For example, if a prosecutor in a criminal case deliberately excludes potential jurors from sitting on a jury on the basis of their race, the defendant can challenge their exclusion by making a third party assertion that the excluded jurors constitutionally guaranteed right to serve on a jury is being improperly denied for that reason. Ahem. Legal-talking guy to legal-talking guy, I have a slight nitpick here: _Batson_ challenges are not predicated on asserting the rejected juror’s right to be seated – they are an exercise of an equal protection claim, where equal protection is violated when the government tries an accused before a jury from which members of his race have been deliberaltely excluded. It is true that by denying someone the opportunity to participate in jury service because of his race, the government also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror, but the _Batson_ challenger is not vicariously asserting that right. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![av8rmike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/edb3f5/32.png) [@av8rmike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/av8rmike)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/105 "2004-10-07T17:27:46Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > I just wonder if he lives in a swing state… 😃 IIRC, **Trunk** lives somewhere in the Baltimore area as well as I. Maryland, as far as I know, isn’t considered to be a swing state, as it tends to support Democrat candidates. Although, there was that thing about electing a Republican governor for the first time in 30 years… Anyway, I live in Baltimore City, but I’m still planning to vote even though I know it’ll be one more in the tide. Each Presidential election past, I felt a little guilty for not having bothered, and this time, I want to feel that I’ve actually taken part. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/106 "2004-10-07T17:46:08Z")
> [@melondeca](#): > > **Munch** , this is the reason that I joined this board. This way all of you lovely people can point out my flaws and help me correct them. That way I can complete my plan of becoming completely ignorance-free, taking over the world and instilling a Totalitarian government. 😃 Thanks for the response, melondeca. Sorry for the delay, I’ve been away from a computer for a couple of days. I guess what struck me the hardest was the following from your OP: > [@](#): > > Politics bore the shit out of me and since I have no interest in anything a politician might have to say, I don’t vote. This is both good and bad. Bad, because (a) you don’t vote, (b) you have no interest, and (c) the system has driven you out. But on the good side, (a) you’re out of the system, (b) you recognize the level of BS that comes from politicians, (c) if you do choose to vote, your choice won’t be predicated on things like labels and spin. Like it or not (if and once you choose to vote), you are the most important type of voter - independent, refusing a political label, massively undecided. And with power comes… yadda, yadda, yadda. ---
**Author:** ![Balle\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@Balle\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balle_M)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/107 "2004-10-07T18:10:52Z")
I have voted in EVERY election since I first became eligable back in 1977. Be it presidential or a local bond issue, I’ve voted. With that out of the way, I’m 100% behind Melondica in his choice not to vote. That is his decison, and frankly it’s none of your or my business. He works and I would assume pays taxes so he’s a productive, contributing member of society whether he votes or not. Oh, and **Equipoise** … FOUR MORE YEARS!!! ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/108 "2004-10-07T18:18:07Z")
> [@Sattua](#): > > Having said that, this November’s election will be the first I’ve ever voted in, and I’ve been legal since before the last election… so we’re sort of in the same boat. That makes two of us. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![FilmGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@FilmGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FilmGeek)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/109 "2004-10-07T19:32:27Z")
As a woman, it is my duty to vote, as the battle to get the vote was won _ **less than 100 years ago** _. It’s my duty to exercise the privelege that was so hard won. Think about that, ladies who don’t vote. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/110 "2004-10-07T19:34:20Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Nope, it’s because she lived under a murderous lying dictator who antagonized the free world and got taken down for it. If she was indeed killed by an American bomb (any proof it wasn’t a car bomb by one of her own people?) then it was an accident. Saddam threw children in jail on purpose. It was fine when they died there, in the dark, where we couldn’t see them, right? I don’t know the circumstances of her death, but I do know that there wouldn’t be car bombings if we hadn’t invaded and destabilized the country, and there wouldn’t be any “accidental” “collateral damage” if we hadn’t invaded and bombed their cities. Saddam was indeed a murderous lying dictator but do we, should we, go around invading, bombing and occupying every country that’s ruled by a murderous lying dictator? There are plenty of others who pose much more of a threat to us than Iraq, where we had no-fly zones and weapons inspectors. Is it just because Saddam was so damned antagonizing? Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Saddam and Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction. Saddam and Iraq had NO connection with Osama bin Laden. Why in the world did we take our focus off Afghanistan and the “war on terror” to follow this deadly, foolish and dangerous path? > [@Balle\_M](#): > > Oh, and Equipoise… > > FOUR MORE YEARS!!! Maybe. If that happens, I expect to hear a trickle of “mea culpas” from Bush, Nader and non-voters fairly soon after, turning into an avalanche. If any good would come out of a second Bush term, it’s that as the damage that Bush and his minions have done, are doing, and will do becomes clearer and clearer, finally, the people would rise up against the neo-con right-wingers and boot them so far out of office they’ll never get back in. It would permanently damage the Republican party to a point it might take them decades to repair the rift. I’m glad that many Republicans are aware of that fact and are voting their conscience, rather than their party. If I didn’t love my country so much, I’d almost wish for Bush to win. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/111 "2004-10-07T21:27:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ahem. Legal-talking guy to legal-talking guy, I have a slight nitpick here: _Batson_ challenges are not predicated on asserting the rejected juror’s right to be seated – they are an exercise of an equal protection claim, where equal protection is violated when the government tries an accused before a jury from which members of his race have been deliberaltely excluded. It is true that by denying someone the opportunity to participate in jury service because of his race, the government also unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror, but the _Batson_ challenger is not vicariously asserting that right. > > - Rick **Bricker** , I hate to say you’re wrong on the law, but it’s the only time I’ve ever known you to be. _Batson_ was pretty clear that deliberate exclusion of blacks from a jury on the basis of race constitututed a denial of not only the defendant’s constitutional rights, but also the rights of the excluded jurors to serve and particpate in the administration of justice. Since the excluded jurors are not parties to the case, the defendant is indeed asserting third party standing on behalf of the excluded jurors. > [@](#): > > Racial discrimination in selection of jurors harms not only the accused whose life or liberty they are summoned to try. Competence to serve as a juror ultimately depends on an assessment of individual qualifications and ability impartially to consider evidence presented at a trial. See Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 223 -224 (1946). A person’s race simply “is unrelated to his fitness as a juror.” Id., at 227 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). As long ago as Strauder, therefore, the Court recognized that by denying a person participation in jury service on account of his race, the State unconstitutionally discriminated against the excluded juror. 100 U.S., at 308 ; see Carter v. Jury Comm’n of Greene County, supra, at 329-330; Neal v. Delaware, supra, at 386. > > \ > > The Court [in _Swain v. Alabama_] went on to observe, however, that a State may not exercise its challenges in contravention of the Equal Protection > Clause. It was impermissible for a prosecutor to use his challenges to exclude blacks from the jury “for reasons wholly unrelated to the outcome of the particular case on trial” or to deny to blacks “the same right and opportunity to participate in the administration of justice enjoyed by the white population.” Id., at 224. If you’re still not convinced, the Court established that the defendant’s assertion of third party standing on behalf of excluded jurors was exactly what _Batson_ mandated in _Powers v. Ohio,_ 499 U.S. 400 (1991), which involved the exclusion of black jurors from a white defendant’s trial, and _Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co._ 500 U.S. 614 (1991), which involved the exclusion of black jurors in a civil case. > [@](#): > > We conclude that a defendant in a criminal case can raise the third-party equal protection claims of jurors excluded by the prosecution because of their race. In so doing, we once again decline “to reverse a course of decisions of long stand- ing directed against racial discrimination in the administra- tion of justice.” Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 290 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment). To bar petition- er’s claim because his race differs from that of the excluded jurors would be to condone the arbitrary exclusion of citizens from the duty, honor, and privilege of jury service. In Hol- land and Batson, we spoke of the significant role peremptory challenges play in our trial procedures, but we noted also that the utility of the peremptory challenge system must be ac- commodated to the command of racial neutrality. Holland, supra, at —; Batson, supra, at 98-99. [Powers v. Ohio](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-5011.ZO.html) > [@](#): > > Having held that in a civil trial exclusion on account of race violates a prospective juror’s equal protection rights, we consider whether an opposing litigant may raise the excluded person’s rights on his or her behalf. As we noted in Powers: “\*n the ordinary course, a litigant must assert his or her own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest a claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” Id., at (slip op. 10). We also noted, however, that this fundamental restriction on judicial authority admits of “certain, limited exceptions,” ibid., and that a litigant may raise a claim on behalf of a third party if the litigant can demonstrate that he or she has suffered a concrete, redressable injury, that he or she has a close relation with the third party, and that there exists some hindrance to the third party’s ability to protect his or her own interests. All three of these requirements for third- party standing were held satisfied in the criminal context, and they are satisfied in the civil context as well. [Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-7743.ZO.html) ---
**Author:** ![melondeca](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@melondeca](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/melondeca)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/112 "2004-10-08T05:29:16Z")
> [@Balle\_M](#): > > With that out of the way, I’m 100% behind Melondica in his choice not to vote. That is his decison, and frankly it’s none of your or my business. He works and I would assume pays taxes so he’s a productive, contributing member of society whether he votes or not. > > [/SIZE] Her…I am a woman. Just a little thing and not necessarily important to this thread but kind of important to me. Oh yeah, and to my boyfriend. He is really happy that I am not a guy. ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/113 "2004-10-08T16:51:32Z")
I can accept that you are sort of a jerk. \>I had a woman tell me that it is my duty as an American to get out there and vote. She’s right. It is. \>I patiently(well maybe not so much)explained to her that I have no clue what any of the candidates stand for. I feel that it is better to not vote than to make an uninformed vote. That’s correct, but not voting and voting unimformedly aren’t the only options. You’re ethically obligated to inform yourself and then vote whether you like it or not. Sorry! ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/114 "2004-10-08T18:45:33Z")
In these times, it’s sad to say that if you live in a swing state, there is a high likelihood your vote _will_ make a difference. After all, if there is another state this election that, like in Florida, the election is within the polling technology’s margin of error, every vote that makes the election even _closer_ in that state will impact the political situation. There would probably be more political pressure for a recount if the winner won the state by 19 votes than if it were by 20, etc. After a certain point, even lifers such as the Supremes would be influenced by the closeness. Not necessarily so, some would still stick to their guns to make sure that “their” candidate won, democracy be damned, but each vote counts, when the lawsuits start :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665/115 "2004-10-09T01:10:29Z")
Unlike many people, I’m actually informed about the two main candidates, although part of that comes from my ride to school having his car radio set to NPR, and listening to that for 1-1.5 hours a day does a little something. I’m aware of much of Bush’s history, and of Kerry’s. I have no intention of voting for Nader, and not really because he has no chance, I don’t agree with him more than anyone else. I’d rather vote for Kerry than any other candidate, though in my case the point is moot. Ah, rest easy, **Trunk** , **Cardboard BOX** ; you’re only declining a precious responsibility that many people would fight to possess – including me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-vote-get-over-it/267665.md?page=5)