No " You never should vote republican" joke, ok? :rolleyes:
This the first time I’ve been old enough to vote while there’s a re-election bid by a member of my party. Is there any point to voting for the candidate that’s obviously going to get their party’s nod? I figure it effects the polls, but anything else?
Presumably there will be other Republican primary races in your area that don’t have a shoe-in incumbant, right?
I think it’s alway good to be in the habit of voting, and, like friedo said, other issues/races are sometimes on the ballot.
FB
I’m not so sure that obvious winners always are winners. If you feel strongly, then go vote.
Ok. Has there ever been an incumbant president who didn’t get their party’s support for re-election? Excepting people who did not serve full terms.
And to be honest, I don’t feel very strongly. I just like Bush slightly more than any of the dems.
I’ll probably vote in the primary anyway, though.
You should vote, and you should vote for the candidate who best reflects your interests. And if you don’t vote, you can’t complain if the outcome displeases you.
People died so you could have that vote. So use it.
Follow your own wishes, though it appears that (unless there’s a big local race that I’ve missed) that there will be no exciting races on the Rep ballot in New Hampshire.
Lyndon Johnson’s decision not to seek re-nomination in 1968 had to have been due at least in part to Eugene McCarthy’s strong showing in New Hampshire earlier that year.
Pat Buchanan didn’t win against Bush 41 in 1992, but he certainly made things more interesting.
Did Andrew Johnson seek, and not get, the nomination in 1868? Or had he pretty much given up by then?
Although I now note, upon re-reading your post, that your question dealt with Presidents who had already been elected once; Andrew Johnson was thus not an incumbent in the same sense that Lyndon was.
Yes, you should vote. Politicians nowadays assume that the only have to answer to the narrow band of voters who vote in primaries (who tend to be unrepresentative of the party and the country as a whole). The more people who vote in primaries, the better it is for everyone, in both obvious and subtle ways.
If you don’t like what the incumbent is doing, then do something about it. Otherwise, you have no right to complain about what the governement is doing.
I don’t know–Earl of Sandwich’s post notwithstanding. However, the republican party has to choose candidates for a lot of other positions than president, and I wasn’t going to jump to conclusions. But I still think that you should vote.
I cannot even begin to describe how much that angers me. Abstention is a perfectly legitimate form of political speech, and anyone who uses it has just as much right to bitch as anybody else.
If I had no real preference between Bush & Gore, then it would be more than sensible to not vote for in the presidential race. Indeed, the idea that I should vote on the flip of a coin is offensive. Having had no preference ex ante in no way implies that my feelings about a candidate or a policy or an issue must remain constant as history unfolds.
Absention is neither laziness nor apathy; you should respect the fact that people don’t share your views and opinions.
But you aren’t abstaining, you’re just not showing up. Abstaining means being present to vote, but voting an abstention.
Not voting is not abstaining, since you’re staying out of the process. If you’re not willing to take part when given the chance, you have no right to complain that you didn’t like the choice.
Granted, there is no mechanism to vote an abstention in the US system, but there are always other options – write ins (I’ve written in candidates for presidential elections*, so I have no sympathy who stays away saying they don’t like the choices) and third-party candidates.
You should be offended. And I hope it inspires you to get off your ass and start doing something instead of whining that you don’t like any of the choices and pretending that apathy is a defensible moral position.
*Yes, my vote counted – I found the names of electors for a candidate who wasn’t officially on the ballot and wrote them in, as required by law.
So all the ballots should have an option that says, “I am choosing not to vote”? Fair enough; however, you have not established that not coming to the polls when one intends to abstain is essentially different from showing up and choosing to abstain.
I’m not so sure you are distinguishing between two types of questions that can come before an electorate. One type seeks a change in the status quo, the other is a decision that must be made one way or the other. In the first type of decision, some sort of majority of the electors is required which implies that an actual vote of abstention is necessary to affect the outcome, and such a vote is functionally the same as a vote against since it adds to the number of votes cast, but not to the number of votes in favor. In the second type of question there is no change to the status quo–the decision is part of the status quo. In this case, an actual vote of abstension is the same as not voting. While more abstentions may force more run-offs, I really don’t see how having a bunch of people without strong opinions mucking up the procedure for no practical effect (barring an aggregation paradox, which is a bad thing anyway and should be avoided) is a good thing.
The presidential race is the second type of question. There is going to be another president, and showing up at the polls to say, “Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other,” isn’t any more productive than staying home and not making some other slob who cares strongly miss more work than she has to.
If we were discussing something like a referendum, or if you had made the distinction and if you had pointed out that for one question votes of abstension are critically important, then you would have a point. But we aren’t, and you didn’t, so you don’t.
Your thinking shows a pristine clarity that I can only dream of. Let me see if I can follow it: You see someone who recognizes the difference between a vote that changes the status quo and a vote that makes a decision within the status quo, therefore that person is a lazy, whiney sophist. I guess those 2,500 miles I put on my car campaigning for a state senator in the last election were purely in my imagination, not to mention all those elections I’ve voted in. Thanks for clearing that up. You should change your name to PerspicaciousCharles, because you are so insightful that I am wondering if you ain’t a fucking psychic!
IANAR, but here’s my policy in any election. Even if the election is a forgone conclusion, even if your vote can’t possibly make any difference, still vote. If you don’t have anything better to do, then find some obscure candidate who you generally agree with on some issues. Vote for that person, even if they will only get ten votes. Then he or she will get eleven votes instead. Why? Because then the candidate who already had a guaranteed victory will know that there are eleven people in their district who are awake, rather than ten.
If there is absolutely no reason that you like one above another I guess it would be a better thing to not vote rather than to vote and give an undeserved vote, canceling out the vote of someone who did care who made it. When I say “care” I don’t mean either being a lazy ass or being a chad counter, I mean if there is honestly not a single reason you can find that you like one above candidate more than another.
A few moments of research, though, should bring up at least ONE subject between a couple of candidates that you at least feel is SLIGHTLY closer to your views than the other candidate.
I assume that there is at least one candidate with whom you agree, even if (s)he doesn’t stand a real chance of winning. In that case, you still should vote for your prefered candidate.
I agree with what ITR Champion said, plus that you show that candidate that (s)he does have some support. That is important, if only to give him/her the courage to continue, as well as giving him/her more clout within the party to press his/her issues.
Don’t vote. Never vote. The fewer people who show up to vote, the more my own vote counts. People died so you’d have the right to NOT vote if you don’t feel like it.
The view that a fellow shouldn’t complain unless he’s voted is utter, complete foolishness. Even though I don’t vote, I’m still doing what small stuff I can to make my libertarian point of view more predominant - by debate and spreading the world how I’m able. No amount of my votes can make anything political the way I want it until more people think the way I do.
If I vote now, I’m just wasting time.
Spreading the word, rather. I don’t spread the world. Even on toast.