I don’t buy into the “one vote doesn’t make a difference” argument. Certainly, one vote all by itself doesn’t, but the collected votes of like-minded people do. However…
Time after time, I find myself voting for someone I despise, simply because I despise the other candidate even more. There have been exceptions (there was a good third-party candidate for governor of my state last time around), but mostly the system as it stands leaves voters with truly horrible choices. The best argument I have heard for not voting is that it lends legitimacy to a terrible system.
Now, I know there are plenty of worse systems than the U.S. government out there. Far, far worse. But I believe that a parliamentary system that allows more than two parties representation to be far superior. I vote third party often, but it is without any real hope. The two major parties have a firm stranglehold on the government, and I really don’t expect that to change in my lifetime.
Anyway, the point of this rant is that I disagree with anyone who says it is the duty of everyone to vote. If you are willing to get informed, and if you believe that you have a good choice available to you, you should vote. If both of those things are not true, then not voting seems a perfectly viable choice.
Thank you for that. You have no idea how aggravating it is to hear someone bitch and bitch about the government, only to find out they didn’t vote.
Hey, here’s how you can make some loot. Conduct your own informal poll. Put out three tip jars: Democrat, Republican, Neither. Ask your patrons to vote. You’ll get more dinero, I guarantee it. A friend of mine who’s a bartender did that in 2000; he claims he cleared easily 50 - 75 clams a day more in tips in the month preceding the election.
If ever there was a non-jerkish, non-rule violating statement that none the less called for a banning, that was it. “Educated yourself for nothing?” Why the hell do you even post here, with that sort of attitude?
A couple of thoughts here: First, I would suggest that there is a valid school of thought that suggests that voting in Presidential elections is, indeed, a waste of time. I cannot think of a single case where I was not choosing between the lesser of two evils. I would guess that a whole lot of people on both sides of the debate feel this way. I still do it, because I in some small want to at least have more pleasing lip-service coming from the White House, but it really feels more like a reflex (especially in the last two elections).
That being said, when it comes to local issues (school levies, property tax, who you send to congress or even the dogcatcher) I think it fair to say that you are voting on issues that will have a direct impact on the quality of your life and it is a pretty good idea to have your say.
you know what, i feel exactly the same way. I don’t vote, nor do I care who wins. I cannot tell the difference with each new president, we stay fucked up either way. And like you, I don’t bitch about the way things are either.
Yes, but Binarydrone makes an excellent point (one I wish I’d made more clear in my own post). The presidential race is just one issue on the ballot. You also have a chance to vote in local and state referendums (or is that referenda?). For school boards, and your county clerk, your mayor, and your senator. For judges, and boards of trustees of your local community college, and sheriff. That stuff matters in your day-to-day life. There are differences in their attitudes in law enforcement and parks development and how important street repair is. In how quickly areas around you are developed, in sales tax rates, in how well-funded your fire department is.
I completely understand feeling disenfranchised with the presidential elections. But it’s not a one-race ballot. I’m not saying you’re obligated to vote (of course you’re not) but I don’t think the fact that presidential candidates are equally unappealing, or that you perceive little difference in American life no matter who is in the White House, shouldn’t be enough to prevent you from voting at all.
I still maintain that America’s prominence in the world makes it your responsibility to do everything you can for other world citizens. Your vote will have a larger impact than all the pennies and dimes you donate during a President’s term. From their perspective, there is a massive difference between the two evils. If the domestic policies aren’t going to change, then maybe our foreign policies will. Here’s a parable.
A parade of boulders are tumbling down a hill towards a chute that terminates in a pair of gates. Every boulder that goes through the left gate flies off the cliff and kills 500 people. Every boulder that goes through the right gate takes a different trajectory and kills 1,000 people. Right now it looks like they’re randomly bouncing through these gates about fifty-fifty. These boulders are going by at a pretty good clip. You and a few thousand people are standing on a patch of gravel watching the boulders go by. One man at the head of the crowd picks up a handful of gravel and throws it as hard as he can to steer the boulder left. The boulder still goes through the right gate. Two people throw handfuls of gravel – still nothing. But when all ten thousand of you throw your handfuls at the boulder, it goes so far left it almost misses the left gate altogether! Unfortunately, the boulder still kills 500 people. Sadly, this continues for hours, the crowd almost stopping the boulder in its tracks, but managing only to save a few hundred people’s lives at a time. Eventually, a man near the back gets tired and says, " my pebbles aren’t making a difference. The boulder is going to kill people no matter what. What’s the point?"
Sure, your choice is the lesser of two (really five or six) evils. But if you don’t make that choice, and the greater of evils is chosen, it’s your fault. It is vitally important to millions of people that you choose the lesser of two evils.
…and you’re sitting here on the internet bitching that you can’t be bothered.
A great post Equipoise, but if the OP cannot be bothered to learn about politics to make an informed choice in voting, why do you think they’d read through your thread? (I mean this with no offense, I really dug your post)
I do have to second the question why someone who pays to ‘fight ignorance’ so gleefully revels in it and talks about it here.
One vote doesn’t count? Maybe. But, for each of you who stays home on election day, MY vote is worth a little more. If enough of you don’t vote, the ultimate choice will belong to, , ,
ME!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Seriously, I’d have to be in a coma not to vote, and I suspect that the people who have the franchise and don’t exercise it already are. Just MHO.
First, I want to thank everyone who has posted here. All of you have had insightful comments that made me think long and hard about my stand on not voting. However, it was the following quote that made me think the hardest:
As I lay in bed last night, I was awake thinking about this thread. I have never considered myself to be an ignorant person and I couldn’t understand why my not exercising my voting privilege would make me ignorant.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that my ignorance did not fall in my choice not to vote but in my unwillingness to consider changing my mind or to learn about the candidates. If this was music being discussed I would be entirely open-minded about listening to something new. That is not to say that I haven’t been open-minded during this thread but I always felt that my “ignorance is bliss” argument was an adequate one.
I can say that although I will not be voting in this election or maybe even in the next few, I have made a promise to myself to become better educated on local or governmental issues that may concern me. I still carry my initial belief that voting for an issue or candidate that one feels strongly about is more important than the act of voting itself.
That brings me back to one of the original points I tried to make in the beginning of this thread. I will not be content voting for someone I know nothing about regardless of their background or name. Prior to this thread, that was the voting advice I received most often. It seems to me that would just be ignorance once again rearing it’s ugly head.
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.
Because only from your brainwashed point of view do you consider the “I don’t vote” position the position of ignorance.
It is you who is espousing flawed logic.
You all are saying nonsense that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Such as “I have no time to listen to someone bitch if they refuse to vote.”
or
“Your vote will have a larger impact than all the pennies and dimes you donate during a President’s term.”
or
“You know, you’ve converted me. Voting is stupid. Let’s have a totalitarian government! I mean, having a voice in government, not having a voice in government, there’s no difference! I’m gonna vote for the fascists next…”
See, what you all are reciting are platititudes and marketing slogans. You’re not saying anything reasonable.
I ask myself the question, “Why go to the polls and cast a ballot?”
The answer is not “because people died for your right to do it.”
The answer is not “because if you don’t you have no right to complain.”
The answer is not “because it is your civic duty.”
The answer is not “because if you don’t, we’ll become totalitarian.”
That’s ignorance.
That’s cliches.
That’s not fighting ignorance.
My answer is, “I would go to the polls if my vote actually served the function of furthering the positions I voted for.” It doesn’t. I don’t vote. The only thing I’m proud of is that I figured this out before I wasted too much time.
melondeca, Trunk, WomanofScorn, and anyone else who revels in deliberately not voting, I have a question for you. Immanuel Kant occasionally presented his categorical imperative for ethical behavior in something along the following lines:
“Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature.”
In other words, take action as though the rest of humanity was going to follow your example. What if, by the act your not voting, nobody in America voted in any election at all? Would that be good or bad?
First of all, I’d question whether that’s the proper way to judge behavior.
Second of all, you’re offering me a hypothetical that doesn’t reflect reality. If no one else voted, I’d vote, because then I’d have all the say. But, I’m operating within reality, not a philosopher’s brain.
Third, while there is a lot of evidence that democracy is a pretty good system of government, I’m not convinced that there aren’t valid systems of government in which the masses don’t pick the leader. The earth has had, and currently has, prosperous successful, long-lasting nations without democracy. That a GD question, though, and one I’m not really fit to argue.
Finally, yes, I might concede that if the TRUE measure of a man’s ethics were “what if everyone behaved that way” there would be many things I’d do different, including – but not limited to – not wearing pants and probably voting.
You’re dodging the question. Nimbly, but dodging nonetheless. Dismissing the question because a philosopher posed it is an ad hominem of sorts, and answering a question other than the one asked is not really relevant.
If I need money, I could borrow and promise to repay it with no real intention of doing so under circumstances that would leave the lender no recourse against me. I don’t do this, in part because if everyone followed my example there would be no such thing as a kept promise to repay money. My question is very simple: if by your not voting nobody else voted, would you vote or not? You indicate that you would, thus acknowledging that collectively, voting is a good thing even if your individual vote is seemingly incosequential. That’s not at all unusual; lots of ethical questions are seemingly inconsequential in the individual circumstance. Even if I’m presented the opportunity to steal money that will not be missed, I don’t, In part because I don’t wish for that behavior to be visited on me. If I steal money yet desire that others don’t do the same to me, I’m being hypocritical. The same applies to those who don’t vote yet purport to believe in the democratic process.
Well, you’re using one specific definition of “ethics” that will clearly “trap” my position and you’re holding that definition up as the standard.
What if I said, “the ten commandments are my standards of ethics”.
That’s why I don’t steal.
And the ten commandments do not tell me to keep holy the Election Day so therefore I’m not acting hypocritically or unethically.
I’m not going to agree with you that Kant’s defintion of ethical behavior is either correct or all encompassing, so you can stop that line of questioning.
Your missing a crucial difference between the Ten Commandments and the categorical imperitive: the Ten Commandments are be kept because they’re commandments, i.e. pleasing to Yahweh. The categorical imperative is an ethical rule of reason and logic. If you don’t agree with it’s application here, you have to demonstrate why through reason and logic. It’s not enough to dismiss it the same way you would dismiss an ethical system of religious faith that you don’t share.
And the simple fact of the matter is, you cannot ethically endorse that others take an action that you yourself refuse to. I’m not trapping you, logic is.
