oldscratch, as far as you saying
Just find a candidate you like! In California, there is the “Peace and Freedom Party”. If you don’t like those, check out the American Socialist party, or the American Communist party, or any other party that’s close to your views. Or just put in a write-in candidate. I always find someone to vote for.
I think most people are missing the spirit of voting. it is not just the psyical act of voting it is the fact that you have the right to do so. Most people in the world do not have the oppotunity to do so. so vote because you can and vote because it does (as others here have said) matter and you can make the difference. I work with a lady from cuba who told me about how you could be shot if you were out after 8pm or when castro took over the military came and took possession of evrything of value (including burial plots) and turned them over to the cuban state.you will rot in jail if you speak your mind about politics,religion, etc. my whole point here is people in america forget just how truely free we really are. sincerly, BB
First my witty rejoinder, then the meat of the argument
** I also have the right to burn the FLAG but you don’t see me doing that do you?!?!**
I feel better now…
This is exactly why I argue against voting. This is someone who agrues that we need to vote becuase we have the right? What stupidity.
I would like to end with a great quote I heard, if anyone can credit the author please do so.
“The politics of ‘lesser evilism’ will end up with Democrats in Hell, stumping for Satan because he’s not as bad as Bealzebub.”
Oldscratch, I am not going to demean your assertion that there are other valuable and valid ways of obtaining a change in society than voting. However, your assertion that, absent voting, those methods work is untenable in the face of evidence.
Let’s go back to the specific example I cited, namely the change in government caused by the Great Depression. Mind you, this was a VERY significant change; we still see its effects today. Federal government went from a relatively small operation to a big-time organization that involves itself in all sorts of daily activities of Americans. But that change didn’t come about because of strikes, riots, marches, etc.
Proof, you ask? Plenty. People tend to forget that Hoover remained President through three and a half years of Depression. During those years (November '29 to March '33), the Republican federal government did very little to change the way it governed the country. The Republicans, despite a LOT of protest from people, were not willing to change their thinking about ‘big’ government to meet the needs of the time. Mind you, there were quite a few riots, strikes, and other protests in those years.
However, in the first 100 days of the Roosevelt Administration, there was a clean sweep of the way federal government handled social issues. Now that didn’t end the issue; the Supreme Court, filled with Republican appointed justices, tended to throw out the laws the Conress, now Democratically dominated, had passed to deal with the situation; Lochner and its progeny were not yet dead and substantive due process still held sway. BUT, that ended when the elected President made some appointments of his own to the court, and then threatened wholesale changes in the Court’s membership and way of doing business.
SOOOOOOOOO, you see, the changes that were effected, while certainly influenced by public opinion as set forth in demonstrations, etc., would never have come about if the Republicans had maintained control of the White House and Congress. They didn’t, because people did something important: they voted.
DSYoungEsq’s weighty analysis can (in my opinion) be boiled down to this:
This is true.
However, this is not good, fair, or wise. This is simply an example of acting out of the passion of the moment.
Passion is a beautiful thing, but it is for moments, not for making weighty decisions, especially decisions impacting a nation and it’s future.
“Your Honor, I voted… but it was an act of passion!” 
Isn’t this part of what we have that “checks and balances” thing for?
Esprix
My assertion that absent voting these methods work is absolutely provable. But first, let me clarify my original position (I fear I was being a tad to polemical). I believe that there are times and places for voting, there are instances when it can send a very useful political message, (only when backed up by political action though). There are times in American history when voting was necessary, simply because the working class didn’t have enough power to bring about change on it’s own. At this particular juncture in American history, voting ** FOR CANIDATES ** serves as nothing but a waste of time. One vote does not make a difference. I agree completely with the mainstreamers in their arguments against voting third party. You are indeed throwing your vote away, no one cares if one more person votes for Ralph Nader. It doesn’t change anything. It just gives you a * false* warm fuzzy feeling. “At least I did something” Bullshit. You didn’t do anything. I also didn’t mean to imply that our government couldn’t change things. Of course they can. Here in California, they repealed the 8 hour day a few years back. That cost working families millions of dollars each year and sent more people into poverty. Welfare reform also had the same effect. What I was arguing, was that you can’t make positive change without political action. We couldn’t expect to gain welfare back just by voting for lying duplicitous candidates. On that note, I would like to include a url from a Ted Rall comic, truly one of the best Political cartoonists out there. http://www.uexpress.com/ups/opinion/cartoon/tr/rallcom/2000/03/tr000302.html
Please don’t think I supported John McCain, it’s just a funny cartoon. I would love to get into a discussion of Roosevelt’s presidency, alas a broken computer at home and lack of time at work prevents me. Maybe some other time. And while changes did occur from his presidency, maybe if people hadn’t wasted their time on voting for him, and instead spent more time working on overthrowing the government we could be living in a better place right now.
The thread lives on! A more focused topic within this general discussion can be found at http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001764.html
I love this. A socialist quoting anarchists. It’s interesting how close radical “socialists” are to “anarchists” for how different socialism is from anarchy.
foolsguinea, patronswaint of Chee-tos, illuminatus
I’d just like to say that just at the very beginning of May, I turned 18. As part of my government class, my teacher brought in forms for all of us to register to vote. I got my card in February, and was actually able to vote in the primaries although I wasn’t 18 yet. I have read a lot about members of the “older”(note: you’re only as old as you think you are) population saying that most of the younger people don’t care enough to vote. I believe most of what you are saying is true because most of us youngsters don’t realize how important voting is in a democracy. However, almost all of my friends also took time to go out and vote. I’m just asking that everybody keep in mind that although generally, teenagers (18-19) and young adults don’t get out and vote as often as they should, there are still a few of us who do know the importance and relevance of it. Anyways, just wanted to throw my useless objective into this lively conversation.
I would like DSYounEsq.to please give ecxamples of the “several elections in this country (admittedly usually for local offices) get determined by coin flips after tie votes”.
I like the Nixon example, because it proves the point that individual votes don’t matter. I mean 500,00 is pretty close, yet it is still 499,999 away from my vote being influential.
Argue voting is a civic duty, argue that voting makes you feel better, argue that it at least makes you particpate in the process. However, don’t argue that it is actually infuencing the result and the political outcomes that arise from the election, beause it isn’t.
Wow, who would have thought this would get resurected. Thanks Bill, I guess… :rolleyes:
not voting is a different way to vote.
if one goes and votes at the booth, then one is saying that they believe that the system is working.
i don’t think the system is working. i think it is broken and will not be repaired. all of candidates and parties that can actually get into office are corrupt. none of them even remotely reflects my views. so why should i pretend that i live in a country where i have a voice in government?? if the houses of represetatives [for example] were filled representationally, i’d be inclined to vote. then at least each seat would be filled to represent 1/435 of the votes [that’s 23/100ths of a percent]. the way things work now, each seat represents 50%+ of the voters from a region. that leaves up to 50% of the voters unrepresented. and i guarantee i’m always one of those.
so how can votingh hurt?? by validating the staus quo.
oldscratch wrote
Well, I didn’t bring it up, just pointed out it’s existance as your first thread.
Hey, wanna see my first thread? It seems like only yesterday… http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=13126
how many people that voted for ronald reagan expected the national debt to skyrocket? or the idiot to create a situation to help get the shuttle blown up? the politicians use polls to figure out what people wnat to hear then hire someone smarter than they are to write what the people want to hear. these clowns aren’t worth the time they take to listen to. even if you win, you lose.
Dal Timgardixiechiq, the absence of a vote can signify many things. Many thousands of votes disappeared from the UK’s electoral roll when the Poll Tax was introduced under Margaret Thatcher, as they believed it would keep the tax collector from the door (metaphorically speaking).
My point is that a ‘non-vote’ is not registering dissatisfaction with the system, as it’s open to any interpretation ‘the system’ wants to give it: apathetic voters, people who just don’t care, people with paranoid conspiracy fears. Your non-vote is just as much a wasted vote as any other, if that’s your take on it.
IMHO, the best way to register disapproval is a spoiled ballot. Tick all of the candidates; scribble on the paper - that says “I care enough to come in and vote, but I’m not playing by the rules. That’s what I think of your system.”
Wow. So did you decide who won? I didn’t see any definitive answer, although it did seem to be leaning towards squid.
Isn’t it self-delusion to vote in a system you believe is corrupt and nearly beyond repair? Sort of like betting on a fight you know is fixed?
I wonder if a “Good American” should participate in a process he knows to be flawed, simply because there is no other convenient option. Emphasis on the word ‘convenient’.
And if one doesn’t vote, one can’t bitch? Seems to suggest that voting is the only choice one has in self-determination. Is the non-voter effected any less by the issues being voted upon? Does the non-voter have any less representation in the government simply because he didn’t participate in the selection of his representative?
Perhaps refusing to vote is the first step in an alternative path towards change.