[QUOTE=Lunar Saltlick]
Well, you could take matt_mcl’s pairing right to the extreme. Set up an informal system at work, school, gym, neighborhood, etc., where people pair off not to vote. The final turnout at the polls would be a few thousand people who had no friends, colleagues, social skills or interests. They’d almost certainly vote for independent candidates, the ones who produce home-made signs with crayons, and set up terrifying Web sites. Might be interesting for a while.
[/QUOTE]
I really like this idea. I think it’d be great to have a few years where our elected officials were chosen by people who still play dice-based Mechwarrior games, record store clerks, and troubled loners.
Nobody “should” vote. You “get to” vote. Candidates tell their audiences that they should vote because the message is plausible and equates to “elect me”. But both sides can’t be right.
Actually, let’s amend that. These days, it’s ethically incumbent upon us all to vote against Republicans. In fact, it’s incumbent upon the OP to make a no-voting agreement with her Republican boyfriend, and also with every other Republican she can find, and to still go vote, and donate heavily to whoever can best compete with Republicans. And dump the boyfriend too (after the election).
[QUOTE=OpalCat]
(I realize there are often lots of other things to vote on on the ballot, but honestly half the time I haven’t studied up and don’t know the issues, so I tend to not vote on those things anyway.)
[/QUOTE]
If you can’t be bothered to do any research, then I definately think you should just stay home.
Some years I keep track, some years I don’t, it depends on what is going on. Also depends on where I’m living and how long I’ve lived there. Just moved to that town? Probably don’t know enough to make an informed decision about how it’s run yet.
Anyway, thanks for the scolding tone, but I already said that I don’t vote on things I haven’t read up on.
As soon as he’s sure you’re staying home, he’ll declare that he’s “just going out for some ice cream”, and next thing you know, he’s in line at the polls!
If you re voting because you think it will have an impact on the election and your vote is only meaningful in that way, then if there is a hypothetical cancelling out, don’t vote. However, if you vote for some other reason, as most people do (civic duty, pride, purpose, ego, whatever) then you should vote. In other words whether you vote or not in this case is pretty much the same reason as to whether you vote at all.
[QUOTE=OpalCat]
Anyway, thanks for the scolding tone, but I already said that I don’t vote on things I haven’t read up on.
[/QUOTE]
A lot of other important things get decided on Election Day other than who will be the next President. But you go ahead and decide not to go because you have to vote Democrat and your boyfriend has to vote Republican and you would therefore “cancel each other out”. Because that’s all that matters. There’s no possibility that you might both want to vote to build a new park or elementary school or something.
But you probably will never know about any of these things, because you can’t be bothered to research them beforehand.
I can’t believe the venom over “I don’t vote for things I’m not familiar with.”
Every election, there are thoroughly confusing local initiatives, such as “Allocation of Funds toward creating an ad-hoc panel to determine the feasibility of reassigning public park land maintenance subsidies.” Yea or Nay?
Sure, you can read up on them, but half the time, the initiatives are so embedded with legalese, and are of such a seemingly benign nature that only a handful of people really know much about them, or care. They’re procedural amendments placed on the ballot because some smartass who created the initial legislation the initiatives are meant to amend included a clause stating all changes can be made only through public initiative.
So if you can’t devote an hour or two to reading up on each of these procedural amendments, why vote for them?
Similarly, when there’s an election for the seats of three members of a five person Orphan’s Court panel, you usually can’t go by much more than the people’s listed party affiliations, because it’s such a small election on the overall ballot that the local newspaper might devote a paragraph to each candidate the day before the election, if you’re lucky. Why vote for one over another when you don’t know either from Dick?
ETA: Looks like it’s just one person condemning not researching who would serve as the better county-appointed Chief of Dog Catchers, and deciding that not being able to vote on every initiative is reason enough to not vote on any items:
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
A lot of other important things get decided on Election Day other than who will be the next President. But you go ahead and decide not to go because you have to vote Democrat and your boyfriend has to vote Republican and you would therefore “cancel each other out”. Because that’s all that matters. There’s no possibility that you might both want to vote to build a new park or elementary school or something.
But you probably will never know about any of these things, because you can’t be bothered to research them beforehand.
[/QUOTE]
So to answer my question to myself: yes, you completely didn’t read post #25, nor are you interested in anything other than sounding superior and condescending. Gotcha. Now I know how much attention to pay to future posts of yours.
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
Oh, I read it. You’re not going to stop voting. Fantastic. But you won’t vote on everything. That’s special.
[/QUOTE]
No, Ashtar, that’s called being a responsible voter.
If you’ve done your homework on Presidential and Gubernatorial candidates, and you’ve made your picks for mayor, city council, school bonds, and Senate, then by golly you should go out and vote.
But if you didn’t research your local judge, then be responsible and don’t check a random box.
I disagree. A responsible voter will research everything to make sure that the right thing happens in every situation they get to vote on. You disagree, and that’s fine. But I think it’s really silly to claim that one doesn’t have time to read about these things when they come to this board to read about pan fried semen and the different colors of various anuses around the world.
We’re not talking about the same thing, Lord Ashtar.
You’re saying that it’s irresponsible not to research all issues on the ballot and vote on them. That’s how I tend to treat voting. I read the full text of all initiatives, and the arguments for and against. I look at the candidates and decide who would be best. I must admit that there are some issues that I simply feel don’t affect me, and I let the people who are affected cast the votes there. In general, though, I agree that the best way to vote is to do your homework first.
I, on the other hand, am saying that it’s not a perfect world, and a large number of people (probably the majority) never research anything deeper than the top few candidates. I have met very few that read the text of initiatives or bond measures before voting on them. I am saying that the responsible thing for these people to do is not vote on the things they haven’t researched. If you vote by guessing, or picking the person with the best hair, you’re hurting the process, not helping.
Tom Davis’ district, in which I will also be living for the next several weeks, includes a substantial chunk of heavily Democratic Northern Virginia and a large part of Republican rest of Virginia. Virtually all of Fairfax County and the surrounding counties is packed and cracked so that there are only 3 Democratic representatives out of 11, even though overall there were barely more than half Republican voters.
Oh, and Davis was reelected 55-44, so that, while still a significant margin, is certainly not insurmountable.
