You suck. Who are you, friend-o?
This is your own damned country. How can you possibly not care? There can be no compelling rationale. Disaffection is a choice. Seriously, nobody can put it on you. Just how lazy do you have to be in order not to vote?
The killer part is that a third party would become viable if even 80 percent of eligible voters turned out on election day.
So fuck you very much, silent 40.
Que? Is that the percentage of Americans who don’t vote or something?
Yes, I’m sorry that it’s so.
2004 was considered a large turnout: 60.7 percent of eligible voters participated in the general election.
I find it interesting that you’d post something like this during not only an extremely active primary season, but also in a decade that’s repeatedly seen record numbers of registrations and voters. I suspect that what bothers you is the fact that increasing numbers of voters have not led to any sort of increasing acceptance of a third party. Why would you think that having eighty or even a hundred percent of voters at the polls would change that?
While I do exercise my right to vote, I’m glad that I live in a country where I have the freedom to not do so if that’s what I choose. For probably more reasons than I can count, many people simply aren’t interested in politics. Not only do I not see a reason to get worked up about that, I don’t even see it as an inherently bad thing.
Let me ask you a question or three, Blank Slate. Would you favor a bill that required people to vote? If so, would you also require them to actually learn about the candidates and issues, even if they hadn’t the slightest bit of interest in any of it? In your eyes, would a country that forced its citizens to do that have more or less freedom than one that didn’t?
They should be killed with a cattle gun.
No, of course not. I’m merely disappointed in those who choose not to vote. I don’t think “not being interested” in politics is a compelling reason. Not that anyone has to have a reason. I truly believe that the majority of non-voters are just too lazy but nonetheless bitch about things that could be corrected if enough people gave a damn.
The fact that Justice John Paul Stevens turned 88 on Sunday should be a sufficient reason to vote for damn near every American, no matter the politcal or non-political stripe.
Um, what? Why? 
George Takei turned 71 on Sunday. Should we all be watching Stark Trek reruns?
That’s kind an… odd rationale.
And why not? What’s it really matter to you? Just as one can accurately extrapolate the results of a contest with millions of voters from a few thousand results, so too will the results be the same whether the number of people who vote is 100 million or 200 million. If it’s not going to change anything, why even care?
The idea is that the Supreme Court justice will probably kick off soon, as he’s really f’ing old.
Since they are appointed by politicians, he would like to see more folks involved to appoint a government that will appoint a supreme that (presumably) will issue the kinds of judgements he believes in.
Of course, if the silent 40 are Fascists, he’s in trouble. Hehehe
I think, vaguely, it’s about the long lives of Justices and how it’s important to play an active role in voting for the people who nominate and confirm them (i.e. Presidents and Senators), since the Justices will be around for a long long time.
Or Stevens is about to retire and/or die and it’s important to play an active role in voting for the people who will nominate and confirm his replacement.
Or something.
How many elections have been impossible to predict by the time 60% of the votes had been counted? The news stations hardly ever wait for more than 60% of precints to report before they declare a winner.
If 80% of people voted, how would that make a third party candidate viable? The extra votes would just get split among the two parties like they always are, like they were in 2004 when we saw the highest turnout for a presidential election.
D’oh! :smack:
I’m not usually that stupid. Working third shift really seems to be taking its toll!
I’m not really looking for a debate so don’t expect me to gather cites to refute any opposing arguments. I happen to think that people who don’t vote are lazy douchebags, so I pitted them. I perfectly understand those who believe it doesn’t make any difference.
I believe that our country is being cheated by apathy, deprived of what we aspire to be, but never seem to reach. So I’m idealistic, sue me.
I don’t think nonvoters are necessarily lazy douchebags. A good example is if someone feels betrayed or cheated by the government, and refuses to vote as a political statement. Some people honestly don’t see any difference between one president and the next, and who can really blame them? Why should an Ayn Rand loving libertarian bother to vote in an election and endorse a candidate that is just as opposed to his views as the other candidate is?
Isn’t Bob Barr leading the Libertarians to glory this November? Voting for Barr would be a more effective expression of politcal dissatisfaction than sitting on one’s thumbs.
You know, I’ve always been under the impression that democracies with a higher turnout tended to field more major candidates/parties. Maybe I’m carrying some ignorance that needs to be fought. Even if it’s true it doesn’t prove a correlation.
Voting is mandatory in Australia, but really only Liberal or Labor* have any chance of getting in charge of the country, which means only two *real *choices. It’s not that impressive a choice for a country with 100% voter turnout.
Mandatory voting is an odd concept. It’s unimaginable in the U.S. and rightly so, imho.
I’m assuming the disinterested vote just to avoid a fine. That’s kinda retarded.
So it’s not “kinda retarded” for disinterested Americans to flip a coin and just vote for whoever? Otherwise they’re “lazy douchebags”, right?
Sorry, but I just don’t get the utter contempt you have for non-voters, and I still fail to see what difference it makes if an extra hundred million people vote or not.
Also,
1992 wants its AM radio talking points back.
I blame a lot of it on campaign strategies in which the aim of advertising is not to get out the people to vote for your guy, but to get the other guy’s voters to stay home. You’ve got to make the other guys voters feel like they’re bad people for voting. They won’t vote for you, but every one that stays home is a victory.