David B, you beat me to it.
Although, I must confess that I was impressed with oldscratch’s comment
That much of oldscratch’s comments are probably true. But all the political action in the world is useless if people don’t vote based upon that action.
Why do politicians care so much about what the AARP says? Not because they are “active,” but because senior citizens vote.
Just vote for some third party guy. Voting 3rd party is actually useful. kinda
The EPA was created in 1970 by a VOTE of Congress. You know, those Representatives and Senators that you get to VOTE for every couple of years? Admittedly, the formation of the EPA was reccommended (along with NOAA)by Richard Nixon, who I’m sure you didn’t VOTE for, and I wouldn’t have VOTED for, but a whole lot of somebodies still VOTED for the guy.
Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the sitting President (remember, we VOTE for him) and confirmed through our Senators (VOTED for) and Representatives (also VOTED for).
Affirmative action, of course, is an offshoot of the 1964 Civil Rights act. Specifically Title VII which “Prohibits private employers from refusing to hire or from firing or discriminating against any person because of race, color, sex, religion, or nation origin.” As originally introduced by President Kennedy (and how do we get presidents again?) Title VII only applied to federal employees, however after much debate in Congress (again. . . ) it was changed to apply to private sector employers as well.
Who’s “us”? All you whiners that don’t vote? No, it doesn’t represent you. And you know why? Because you don’t vote.
Sure there is: vote!
Yes, but the appointed positions tend to focus on implementation of policy, while it is the elected positions that actually decide on policy (and appoint the others).
That just flat wrong. Every single person that is elected is elected because he or she has popular appeal. That appeal may have been created through efforts of “Big Business”, but if Big Business is unduly influencing voters, the blame rests fully on the voters; it’s their responsibility to decide on the issues and candidates.
With an attitude like that, it certainly won’t.
**The only way to change is to vote? I don’t think so.
[/quote]
No, but is the most important, and it is rather silly to give up on it just because
Well then, you’re obviously delusional.
You mean how could have people smashed in windows and overturned cars through voting? Is this what you call “change for the positive”?
Direct action in conjuction with voting in legitimate political action. Direct action in conjuction with a blatant disrespect for democratic principles is, at best, irresponsible, and at worst the path to totalitarinism.
I agree. In an election where you don’t like either of the candidates of the Big Two parties, you can send an “I’m dissatisfied” message by voting for a 3rd party or write-in candidate.
Kotos: GO AHEAD, THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!!! BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
The Ryan wrote
Actually, I was impressed with oldscratch’s assertion that voting isn’t the end-all of effecting change. In fact, of the possible actions open to people to effect change, voting is one of the smaller ones.
I do still stand by my previous opinions in this thread, including the OP.
Good god, the number of people who don’t understand civic duty.
Let’s take certain assertions and examine them closely:
1) An individual’s vote doesn’t matter; elections aren’t won by one vote.
Actually, each year, several elections in this country (admittedly usually for local offices) get determined by coin flips after tie votes. Think about that. If only ONE other person had cast a vote for either candidate, the outcome would have been decided at the ballot box.
But let’s ignore these anecdotal situations and test the hypothesis itself with logic (OH GOD, not LOGIC!!!).
If EVERYONE came to the same conclusion, no one would vote. No winner, no loser, no nothing. Yet, before the votes are cast, if the hypothesis is correct, NONE of the votes cast mattered and everyone should stay home. Logic, however, dictates that someone should vote, else there will be no result. How can any individual say, before the election starts, that their vote is insignificant?
Examine this with examples: If a vote of three people results in two people choosing A, and one person choosing B, A did not win because of the second vote for A, but as a result of the combined votes for A. Had the result been 10 - 1, no single vote for A would be irrelevant because if none of the voters for A had chosen A, B would have won.
On a more practical level, in 1968, Richard Nixon was elected president in part because he received 500,000 more votes in the election than did Hubert Humphrey (ignore for a moment the math of what that did to the Electoral College). This was out of a total of roughly 73 million voters, or just over one-half of one percent of the total votes. Even though civic duty was high at the time, even THEN there were at least a third of registered voters (to say nothing of those legally able to vote and not registered) who didn’t vote at all. Think about this. Had simply 500,000 people nationwide who decided not to vote chosen to vote for Humphrey, Nixon wouldn’t have been president and Watergate wouldn’t have ever happened. And Kennedy in 1960 won HIS election with a general vote of only 100,000 more than Nixon. We coulda had Tricky Dick 8 years earlier. Voting doesn’t matter MY ASS.
2) Voting doesn’t change anything.
Another silly assumption, but one has to resort to empiric data (ok ok, anecdotes from history) to establish the silliness of the idea.
In 1929 the stock market crashed. The result was a depression that was worse than any experienced by the country before. This came about, at least in part, because of the laissez-faire approach to economic legislation adopted by the Republican party nationally during the period 1908 to 1929. Now, I am no great fan of FDR, I personally think the sonofabitch was closer to thinking of himself as ‘regal’ than Nixon ever was and I still think that a lot of his policies adopted during the 30’s and 40’s are helping to kill our society today. BUT, having made that disclaimer, one MUST concede that the America of the late 40’s was VERY different from the America of the early 30’s, and this was completely the result of voters forcing change in Washington during the elections of 1932 through 1946. Similarly, the elections of 1980 through 1984 caused a significant change in Washington. And let’s face it: had there been a few fewer brave souls who were willing to risk the fate of the nation on an untried legislator from Illinois who carried the standard of a relatively new party in 1860, the post-Civil War look of this country might have been quite different.
Voting always affects policy, often it even effects policy.
3) If you don’t vote, you can’t bitch about the state of things.
This isn’t true, but it is a short-hand way of saying something that is true: If you don’t like the state of things, you can’t expect them to change if you don’t vote to change them. Everyone has the right, and I think the duty, to make clear when they disagree with what government is doing. Doing so is part and parcel to the marketplace of ideas that makes freedom of speech so important a method of preventing tyrrany. But getting upset because those with power always seem to do things you don’t want them to do, then failing to take even the simplest step to rememdy the trouble by voting is a pretty stupid way to live. It reminds me of my children whining because they can’t find their gloves, but refusing to take them off and put them in the same place each time. One does get tired of hearing about it after a while.
There are, of course, other ways to effect change in government, but voting is SO easy to do.
Having addressed these issues, let’s address the idea behind the main post:
Billiehunt asserts, in essence, that it hurts the system for people to vote who aren’t informed or who don’t have a passion about the issues at stake. This misunderstands the purpose behind most representational voting as it exists at present in this country.
Initially, of course, with a limited franchise, the idea billiehunt proposes makes sense. If the idea behind elections is to choose those who will do the best job of governing the country by studying the relevant issues and then selecting those best qualified to meet those issues, one must have a grasp of those issues to reach a reasonable conclusion. Indeed, it was this idea of ‘democracy’ that caused the founding fathers to insert into our Constitution things like the Electoral College, and the selection of Senators by the state legislatures (who would, presumably, select the ‘older, wiser’ heads to help govern the country with a steady hand). Propertied men were allowed to vote because the assumption was they, having more at stake (wealth that could be taxed), and in general being better educated (education often being reserved at the time for those with money), would do a better job informing themselves about issues. Their decisions would be intelligent, that is, rational and well thought out. The result would be good leaders for the nation.
Today, of course, we eschew this idea of limited democracy for an ever more inclusive franchise. What does this mean regarding the selection process? It means that our representatives no longer are people who we think are best suited to govern us, after careful study of our choices. Instead, we are selecting those who we choose to have represent us, based on the collective sum of our integrated societal profile. In short, we elect people now by canvassing our cross-section of political feelings at the moment of the election and the person who communicates to the most people a sense that he or she will represent their ideals and opinions wins. Under this model, it is VITAL that everyone who can votes, because otherwise the person elected does NOT actually represent the majority (or plurality) of that cross section.
Does this mean that it is right to make a selection simply because someone else (besides the candidates, that is) has said you should make that selection? Of course not. It never was and it never will be right to let others make up your mind for you. Voting Democrat because Grandpa says the Republicans were the party that busted up the Confederacy, or because your union said to, is stupid, just as voting Republican because Democrats are ‘anti-business’ and the local C of C said to vote Republican is stupid. If you believe the Democratic candidate is ‘anti-business’ and wish to vote accordingly, THEN do so.
In short, the reason that the original post’s hypothesis is incorrect (IMHO) is that it misunderstands the way a democracy works in a country as big as the United States. We aren’t voting because we each and every one of us individually have some measurable effect on what our government does; with 250 million plus in the country that would be completely unworkable. We vote because we have a system whereby our leaders, to do the job we wish, have to be representative of us as a whole. We can’t be completely inclusive, but we can at least
(note to self: buy DSYoung several beers)
A very large tip o’ the hat. May I have permission to print that post and share it with my more apathetic coworkers?
-andros-
DSYoungEsq wrote
Hold it, Sheriff.
What Bill was asserting had nothing to do with fairness or passion. Voting is not hypothetical fluff to Bill. Bill votes to win. Not coincidently, people who aren’t really interested in the outcome of a vote don’t tend to vote in the direction that Bill votes. This makes Bill unhappy.
Oh, and here I thought you had actually posited something of value.
If your posistion is: “don’t vote if you don’t vote like me (and I assume that means you don’t care cause caring people vote like me)” then your position is simply ridiculous.
Some very well reasoned intelligent arguments from DSYoungEsq
I would never say that you couldn’t change who is in power by voting. I say that it makes no practical difference.
- Please understand that when I say this I’m coming from a Socialist perspective. All candidates are dedicated to uphold capitalism.*
Kennedy, the great liberal hope, hated Cuba.
Nixon, the great Right wing menace, normalized relations with China. Maybe if Nixon had been in power earlier, we wouldn’t have had the Cuban missile crisis. Maybe relations with Cuba would be a lot friendlier?
You state that America was very different. I agree. However, stating that is was different because people exercised their Civic duty by voting is ridiculous. The 30’s were a time of huge upheaval in our country. You had mass strikes, marches for civil rights, people fighting for unionization rights. People do not force change in Washington through voting. They do it through direct action.
Again I go back to taking a larger step, actually working to change things rather that just vote. The OP said you couldn’t bitch if you don’t vote. I am not against voting as a whole, I just understand that there are real ways to change things, and voting is not one of them. It makes people complacent and lazy. I think more right-wingers should vote. If the Christian coalition and Abortion opponents thought that the best way to change things was to vote, and did nothing else, I would be overjoyed. I think that sometimes voting can indeed send a message. If that voting is not followed up with action, it has done no good.
It does matter who is in office. I didn’t mean to imply that it made no difference. Bilk Clinton has done more for the Right Wing and conservatives than George Bush and Reagan could have hoped for. If a republican had been elected instead of him, you would see a lot more opposition to the proposals, rather that muted acceptance from * liberals *. I’m running out of time and need to send this right now, but let me include a link that has more info on not voting. This is from an Anarchist perspective, so I don’t agree with everything included. For the most part though, it’s quite informative. http://burn.ucsd.edu/~mai/voting.html
oldscratch, what’s wrong with voting? What’s the harm? So why not just do it? If you’re all gung-ho for making change, surely this less than 5 minutes once every 2 or 4 years isn’t going to take you away from some important union-breaking or socialist rally?
Esprix
Good question. Nothing wrong with voting in the abstract. If you recall, I mention that I vote for propositions. I oppose the attitude that you must vote, or that voting makes a difference. I disagree with the politics of lesser-evilism that modern voting requires. If I run across someone who argues for using voting to create change, I will argue against them. If I run into someone who doesn’t vote because they dont’ believe it makes a difference then I will agree with them, and argue on how they can * actually* make a difference.
But certainly there is a very slim chance that voting will make a difference, even if it’s just who shakes hands with foreign dignitaries. For that very slim chance, I’d still take the 5 minutes to vote, plus continue to do the kinds of things you do. It can’t hurt, and it might just help.
My $0.02
Esprix
I understand where you’re coming from. However the illusion that it just might help is a false one, therefore I still oppose voting. Plus I would be forced to make a choice from canidates I did not like. I do take the 5 minutes to go and vote, I just don’t mark any of the canidate boxes.
What really bugs me about voting though is the holier than thou attitude of most voters towards non-voters.
You don’t vote because it’s an illusion? But surely you see that a vote does count for something, even if it’s something you don’t support or encourage or wish to participate in?
You believe it doesn’t count, I believe it does. Who would have thought voting would be akin to religous beliefs? 
Esprix, who doesn’t think he’s better than anyone
I only vote for the one true canidate. Anyone who votes for other canidates will go to hell. 
I have nothing to add to the vote/don’t vote discussion other than to commend DSYoung on his brilliance, thoroughnes, and eloquence.
I’m just a history student out to clear something up.
oldscratch said:
Wouldn’t have had the Cuban missle crisis? Quite possibly- Kennedy’s early foreign policy record (Bay of Pigs, Berlin Wall) had convinced Krushchev that Kennedy could be rolled over; whether he would have felt the same way about Nixon is debatable.
But friendlier relations with Cuba? Not unless Cuba happened to successfully test an atomic bomb, grow into one of the largest countries in the world, and show a willingness to stop fighting the U.S. and start fighting with the U.S.S.R. instead.
(And FWIW, being a ‘great liberal hope’ in the '50’s and early '60’s didn’t necessarily have anything to do with how one felt about Communism; remember that Hubert Humphrey, the great liberal Happy Warrior, once sponsored a bill in Congress that would outlaw the American Communist Party.)
JMCJ
Give to Radiskull!