I'm not going to vote this year.

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=begbert2]
This is silly. If you’re not voting, you are not part of the problem; you are also not part of the solution. You’re a bystander.

Do the math. As most of us aren’t senators or whatever, positions we vote for do not have to get a specific number of votes to win, they have to get a certain percentage of votes to win. If you don’t vote, the calculations are adjusted to write you out of the equation entirely. You’re not part of the ‘solution’, you’re not part of the ‘problem’, you’re not part of anyone’s victory. Obviously.

To claim non-voters as part of the “problem” is to make stupid assumptions. The first stupid assumption is that the non-voters would have voted the way you wanted them to. The best argument I see here for a current disaffected voter to vote would have them voting for a third party candidate, which wouldn’t have done diddly to solve your “problem”, since votes for such candidates have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election in question.

The second stupid assumption is that everyone lives in a purple state. I live in a blood red state, and didn’t vote against Bush either time. What would have happened if I had? I certainly wouldn’t have tipped the balance in my state any; even if I had voted for the Democrat’s candidate each time, and gotten fifty other people to do the same, it would have made no difference whatsoever. It’s a waste of time. Ergo, it’s stupid to complain that I didn’t.
It’s also stupid to say that only by voting do I “earn” the right to complain. Non-voting has no different effect on the outcome than voting for a third party or voting for the winner. But is the statement “You only have a right to complain if you voted for the primary opposition”? No, it’s strictly about voting/nonvoting. That’s because the silly cliche is all about pretending that the mere act of voting is something inherently noble, and nothing to do with anything relating to the actual real world.
[/QUOTE]

Nice to see you picked the one line you could pick at while ignoring the context. Non-voting makes you part of the problem because you’re instilling apathy. If those who could vote don’t care, why should the people we elect?

If you really don’t care, fine, don’t vote. But if you really don’t care, then why would you later complain? Complaining implies you DO care, which means you should express your beliefs.

And second, I never said I want people to vote hoping they’ll vote for my guy. Chances are I’ll vote Libertarian, precisely for the reasons I outlined earlier. Neither the Republican or Democratic party addresses my concerns sufficiently and I hope that enough of the people that agree with me will vote so that my issues get noticed. But at the same time, that doesn’t mean I only want people to vote IF they’ll agree with me. This isn’t a representative democracy if the opinions of the people aren’t accurately assessed.

Here’s how I see it:
Non-vote: no statement, no change, no impact, you save the time it takes to vote.
Vote: I’m making my statement hoping that if enough people agree with me, that statement will be noticed. If not enough people do, it still may have no effect, but I’m not somehow worse off than if I didn’t vote.

Seriously, apathy IS the problem, it’s exactly why such a small number of people like the religious right-wing, and the tree-hugging left-wing have the power they do, because they’re NOT apathetic.

Let’s try an analogy. Let’s say I’m driving along at the legal speed limit and a kid runs out into the street and I don’t have enough time to stop. According to your logic, I might as well not even bother to hit the breaks since it won’t do any good anyway. Even if I KNOW I wouldn’t have time to stop, I’d still hit my breaks and TRY to avoid hitting him. Sure, the outcome is the same in either case, but damnit, at least I TRIED to change the outcome in the second, and there’s always the chance that I’m wrong.

The political parties put up crappy candidates because there’s this huge wave of inevitability that washes across the population that it doesn’t matter. There’s this big rush of apathy. The apathy of the people is why the government is less and less representative of our desires. Quite frankly, it pisses me off that people moan and groan about how horrible the government is, but then turn around and get all apathetic when they actually have a chance, even a minute one, to make a difference in it. You can’t have it both ways.

62

[QUOTE=begbert2]
This is silly. If you’re not voting, you are not part of the problem; you are also not part of the solution. You’re a bystander.

Do the math. As most of us aren’t senators or whatever, positions we vote for do not have to get a specific number of votes to win, they have to get a certain percentage of votes to win. If you don’t vote, the calculations are adjusted to write you out of the equation entirely. You’re not part of the ‘solution’, you’re not part of the ‘problem’, you’re not part of anyone’s victory. Obviously.
[/QUOTE]

And obviously, by not voting, you’re lower the percentage of votes of whoever does represent you best (even if you simply write yourself in).

Chances are if X-thousand voters did vote in 2000, it would have changed things, possibly to the extent that the outcome would have been different. There’s no such thing as a bystander. It’s a vote that no one gets, and it is a waste.

63

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
Nice to see you picked the one line you could pick at while ignoring the context. Non-voting makes you part of the problem because you’re instilling apathy. If those who could vote don’t care, why should the people we elect?

If you really don’t care, fine, don’t vote. But if you really don’t care, then why would you later complain? Complaining implies you DO care, which means you should express your beliefs.

And second, I never said I want people to vote hoping they’ll vote for my guy. Chances are I’ll vote Libertarian, precisely for the reasons I outlined earlier. Neither the Republican or Democratic party addresses my concerns sufficiently and I hope that enough of the people that agree with me will vote so that my issues get noticed. But at the same time, that doesn’t mean I only want people to vote IF they’ll agree with me. This isn’t a representative democracy if the opinions of the people aren’t accurately assessed.

Here’s how I see it:
Non-vote: no statement, no change, no impact, you save the time it takes to vote.
Vote: I’m making my statement hoping that if enough people agree with me, that statement will be noticed. If not enough people do, it still may have no effect, but I’m not somehow worse off than if I didn’t vote.

Seriously, apathy IS the problem, it’s exactly why such a small number of people like the religious right-wing, and the tree-hugging left-wing have the power they do, because they’re NOT apathetic.

Let’s try an analogy. Let’s say I’m driving along at the legal speed limit and a kid runs out into the street and I don’t have enough time to stop. According to your logic, I might as well not even bother to hit the breaks since it won’t do any good anyway. Even if I KNOW I wouldn’t have time to stop, I’d still hit my breaks and TRY to avoid hitting him. Sure, the outcome is the same in either case, but damnit, at least I TRIED to change the outcome in the second, and there’s always the chance that I’m wrong.

The political parties put up crappy candidates because there’s this huge wave of inevitability that washes across the population that it doesn’t matter. There’s this big rush of apathy. The apathy of the people is why the government is less and less representative of our desires. Quite frankly, it pisses me off that people moan and groan about how horrible the government is, but then turn around and get all apathetic when they actually have a chance, even a minute one, to make a difference in it. You can’t have it both ways.
[/QUOTE]
You’re assuming that the options we have to select from when we vote allow us to control the factors about which we’re compaining, in any kind of reliable or predictable manner. If that’s not true, or even if the prospective voter thinks that it’s not true, then not voting and then complaining about the actions of the government are perfectly compatible positions.

And if you can’t possibly avoid hitting the boy, then all that slamming on the brakes accomplishes is to give you the opportunity to whine and say you’re somehow less responsible (when in actuality you weren’t responsible either way), and maybe to criticize the person who just blew on through (despite them having no worse an effect on things than you).

If you actually could possibly make a difference, well then, that’s a little different. Which is why apathy makes a lot more sense (and is a lot less of a “problem”) in an overwhelmingly one-color area. I would probably have voted in the last presidential election were I in a puple area, myself.

64

The system will exist regardless of whether or not you participate. There are plenty of kool-aid drinking zealots who will blindly vote for whoever they’re told to vote for. If you decide to stop voting in protest of the people they elect, you are just giving them more power. You fix a problem by fixing it - not by ignoring and wishing it wasn’t there.

Back before the Civil War, the south had a disproportionate voting weight because slaves were counted as part of a state’s population even thought they obviously couldn’t vote. So the black people couldn’t vote and the white people voted for them. And if you don’t vote you’re voluntarily putting yourself in the same position those slaves were forced into - other people will vote and their vote will count for you.

We apparently have different interpretations of what people are saying.

65

I don’t get angry at people who don’t vote. But the one reason that absolutely puzzles me for not voting is that some feel as though the candidates have to be better before they’d consider voting FOR someone. (And this thought has been expressed several times in this thread already.)

This makes as much sense to me as not paying attention to the news because I have yet to find the newspaper, magazine, TV show, or blog that really speaks to me; or in a bit a hyperbole, refusing to wear clothes because I haven’t yet found the ensemble that is snazzy, comfortable, sporty, elegant, cheap, and unique.

We make compromises from our ideal every moment of the day: I had a microwave dinner for lunch instead of something more fulfilling; I went to sucky Home Depot today because Lowe’s is too far away, and I have to go to work tomorrow because I played hooky today. It’s as though for these non-voters I’m speaking about, the direction of the country is the one thing that is simultaneously regarded as a matter of little importance and yet something on which there cannot be any compromise. To me, this makes so little sense that I find it simply a ruse for some other reason for not voting.

66

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
We apparently have different interpretations of what people are saying.
[/QUOTE]
Yes; the difference being that when I say that some people’s votes aren’t going to make a difference (blood red state, anyone?), you’re apparently reading me as saying no votes are going to make a difference.

Also, the difference being that I state (quite rightly, I believe) that some people believe that certain pairs of candidates are not meaningfully distinguishable from one another, and your reading that as me saying that their belief must be right, presumably for all combinations of candidates.

(I think that covers the quotes from me, at least.)

Yes, we interpret things differently.

67

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
I don’t get angry at people who don’t vote. But the one reason that absolutely puzzles me for not voting is that some feel as though the candidates have to be better before they’d consider voting FOR someone. (And this thought has been expressed several times in this thread already.)

This makes as much sense to me as not paying attention to the news because I have yet to find the newspaper, magazine, TV show, or blog that really speaks to me; or in a bit a hyperbole, refusing to wear clothes because I haven’t yet found the ensemble that is snazzy, comfortable, sporty, elegant, cheap, and unique.

We make compromises from our ideal every moment of the day: I had a microwave dinner for lunch instead of something more fulfilling; I went to sucky Home Depot today because Lowe’s is too far away, and I have to go to work tomorrow because I played hooky today. It’s as though for these non-voters I’m speaking about, the direction of the country is the one thing that is simultaneously regarded as a matter of little importance and yet something on which there cannot be any compromise. To me, this makes so little sense that I find it simply a ruse for some other reason for not voting.
[/QUOTE]

And therein lies the problem with non-voting. If you’re holding out for the perfect candidate for you, you’re out of luck. Democracy is about compromise; there are 300 million people in this country, and no one’s going to agree on everything a candidate says. The reason candidates are so plain and wishy-washy is because they have to appeal to so many different people. There’s no avoiding that. If someone offers you chocolate or vanilla ice cream, and you don’t like either flavor and refuse, you can’t later complain about not having any ice cream. Most people like chocolate or vanilla, so that’s what’s available.

68

[QUOTE=Marley23]
Very thoughtful. So do you think non-voters should be shot, or just whipped and jailed?

I really dislike the “you’re an idiot if you don’t vote” tone some people take, around here and elsewhere. The political system in the U.S. does not present every available option and I think it’s more than reasonable if some people refuse to make the least worst choice and endorse a system that is itself flawed. That’s my position, more or less, since I haven’t decided if I will vote or not in November. There’s no lever to pull that says “both these options are wrong and the assumptions behind them are wrong.”
[/QUOTE]

Well since some people refuse to vote they can go to China, or Cuba, and feel right at home without the risk of getting shot, whipped, or jailed. It works out perfectly for them since they don’t want to vote anyways.

Clearly, by NOT voting NOTHING is changed. If you want CHANGE then talk with your senator/rep and voice your concerns about how you think the system is flawed and how it should be changed. If you feel the way you do I bet there are plenty of other people out there who feel similiar…but by NOT voting and then doing NOTHING else?

69

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
We apparently have different interpretations of what people are saying.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds that way. begbert already responded and I wasn’t saying there’s no difference. A comment like “the candidates are not sufficiently different” is not the same as “there is no difference.”

I’m a little surprised you’re defending that hyperbolic and ridiculous comparison. It doesn’t sound like you know anything about China or Cuba, since people there run afoul of the government for reasons that have nothing to do with voting.

70

[QUOTE=Yumblie]
Most people like chocolate or vanilla, so that’s what’s available.
[/QUOTE]
In fairness, although chocolate and vanilla are the most popular, there’s also garlic flavored ice cream out there. It appeals to few people, but those who like it often talk about how chocolate and vanilla are too similar in that they are both sweet and most people like them. Thus is explained the limited appeal of Ralph Nader.

71

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
The system will exist regardless of whether or not you participate. There are plenty of kool-aid drinking zealots who will blindly vote for whoever they’re told to vote for. If you decide to stop voting in protest of the people they elect, you are just giving them more power. You fix a problem by fixing it - not by ignoring and wishing it wasn’t there.
[/QUOTE]

In both the US and Canada, election regulations have changed and, I believe, it is due to the percentage of individuals that do not vote. Specifically, contributions to a single candidate are now limited. This means that one supporter cannot contribute and gigantic amount to a campaign and then have influence after the fact.
This is still one of my biggest beefs. In the US campaign budgets are well over 100 million dollars. This is obscene! Why should I participate in such a system?

72

As far as I’ve heard, campaign finance reform had nothing to do with low voter turnout.

And not voting will do what to address this problem? As I’ve written, other people are going to vote and people will get elected. You say you’re unhappy with the system but by not voting you’re telling everyone your opinions can be ignored with impunity.

73

But the OP and others have already declared that they don’t plan on voting this year. It’s months before the election and we don’t even know who the candidates are yet, much less what they’re going to say and do before November or how close they’ll appear on Election Day. For someone to say they’ve already decided to sit this one out is pretty much an abandonment of the whole system not just a reaction to a particular situation.

74

[QUOTE=Marley23]
Sounds that way. begbert already responded and I wasn’t saying there’s no difference. A comment like “the candidates are not sufficiently different” is not the same as “there is no difference.”
I’m a little surprised you’re defending that hyperbolic and ridiculous comparison. It doesn’t sound like you know anything about China or Cuba, since people there run afoul of the government for reasons that have nothing to do with voting.
[/QUOTE]

We aren’t discussing the other reasons that could get one in trouble in those countries. What we are discussing is that some people don’t want to vote, so that if they go to those countries they won’t have to worry about voting.

75

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
But the OP and others have already declared that they don’t plan on voting this year. It’s months before the election and we don’t even know who the candidates are yet, much less what they’re going to say and do before November or how close they’ll appear on Election Day. For someone to say they’ve already decided to sit this one out is pretty much an abandonment of the whole system not just a reaction to a particular situation.
[/QUOTE]
Or a reaction to something that isn’t going to change - like, they hate all the possible candidates, or think they’re all equally good, …or maybe they live in a persistently monocolor state. :slight_smile:

[Quote=ManiacMan]
We aren’t discussing the other reasons that could get one in trouble in those countries. What we are discussing is that some people don’t want to vote, so that if they go to those countries they won’t have to worry about voting.
[/QUOTE]
They can also stay in the USA and not worry about voting - abstaining from the polls is still legal, you know. Suggesting that leaving the country is necessary is somewhere between absurdly hyperbolic and downright ridiculous.

76

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
We aren’t discussing the other reasons that could get one in trouble in those countries. What we are discussing is that some people don’t want to vote, so that if they go to those countries they won’t have to worry about voting.
[/QUOTE]

And if only the OP had argued “I can’t vote, it makes me worry too much,” your retort would have been perfect. As opposed to what it is now, which is total hyperbole.

77

[QUOTE=monstro]
It doesn’t bother me when people don’t care enough to vote for the presidential elections.

But what about local elections? IMHO, there are very few good reasons why people shouldn’t at least vote for their mayor and councilmen. I suppose apoliticism is one good reason (and in that case, I don’t want to hear any whining about taxes or incompetent public officials). But shouldn’t people care about what’s going on around them?

Personally, I can’t imagine not voting. People have given their lives for the right. It seems irresponsible to not to use it.
[/QUOTE]

The Presidential primaries & election get lots of publicity. But many local races require a bit of research. That’s too much effort for some people. A British friend said her mother reminded her of the Suffragettes’ struggles–so she should always vote.

(As a Texan, I was told my 2000 vote for Gore “didn’t count.” Of course, it turned out that the Supremes’ votes counted more than anyone’s. But, when raw numbers were counted, I was part of the larger group of Americans who thought the wrong man was inaugurated. I’ve had the opportunity to vote against both Bushes, Reagan & Nixon!)

78

Personally, I would prefer that only motivated, intelligent, and knowledgable people vote. The Australian system (where people are required to vote or be fined) might as well select winners based on a coin toss - not very democratic in my view.

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
I can’t vote for McCain, Obama, or Hillary because I just can’t agree with any of their political views enough to think any of them will do a particularly good job as president (and I won’t say why, since I don’t want to hijack the thread). So what are my options?
[/QUOTE]

I see this complaint all the time and find it rather perplexing. These guys are as different as night and day. There is an easy way to resolve your problem using the Pareto Principle. Select the top 3 issues most important to you and see where the candidates stand on those issues only. I think if you analyze it that way, you’ll be able to vote in a way that matters most to you.

Furthermore, IMO, it only makes sense to select from the Democrats or Republicans. In the US we have a 2 party system that is not likely to be changed. Under this system, a vote for a 3rd party candidate nearly always works against your self-interest. Pick the candidate that comes closest to your views on the most important issues.