Well, it was a good thread title, anyway.
No, I wasn’t trying to wind anybody up. I’ve been having these bouts of idealism lately…I hope they pass soon.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I do vote, but I don’t feel some overwhelming sense of superiority about it.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because your not doing it right. You need to look down your nose at some of the other citizens.
[QUOTE=dalej42]
Also, remember that many voters live in states which are so overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican, that their vote **won’t ** make a difference.
In 2004, I stood in the cold rain for 90 minutes to vote because I lived in Columbus, Ohio.
This year? I know Texas is going McCain. I’ll probably vote, but I wouldn’t stand in the rain for 90 minutes to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Bingo. I live in California, which will go for the Dem for President. I like to throw down a protest vote at the polls (Green, Libertarian, or other random ones on the list). I honestly wish we could add “None of the Above” to the polls to let people FORMALLY disclose a vote of “No Confidence.”
In California it is worth it to vote since we get so many propositions on the ballot. Once we hit national elections, however, my vote as a registered Republican is effectively worthless. I still show up, but I can certainly understand why others do not.
Frankly, if they don’t know or don’t care - I don’t WANT them to vote. Hell, I wish we could run a quiz for renewing your voter registration based on the Citizenship test that immigrants take. You would have to get a “C” to be able to vote. Yes - this would be abused, is probably UnConstitutional, etc. I just get gloomy when I talk to people with their “I voted” sticker and I find out just how stupid they are when it comes to our Nation.
[QUOTE=dalej42]
Also, remember that many voters live in states which are so overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican, that their vote **won’t ** make a difference.
In 2004, I stood in the cold rain for 90 minutes to vote because I lived in Columbus, Ohio.
This year? I know Texas is going McCain. I’ll probably vote, but I wouldn’t stand in the rain for 90 minutes to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Tell me about it. (Registered Republican. California. wince)
[QUOTE=Blank Slate]
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.
[/QUOTE]
If you believe laziness is what keeps people from voting, then it’s counterproductive to use shame to get them to do it. That will simply result in people doing what they have to do to avoid the shame (vote) without doing what they have to do to avoid the lazy (get informed). And as a bonus, the people this gets to vote will have a new-found sense of how great it feels to do their civic duty, and will happily join you in your smug, idiotic campaign to get other uninformed people to vote.
ETA: I see you’ve already come down a little since I started writing this. Sorry to be so harsh, but I really think that rants about people who don’t vote are misguided and counterproductive. Shame people into getting educated about the issues, not into voting. Once the education comes, you’ll have a hard time keeping people from voting, imho.
[QUOTE=mlees]
That’s because your not doing it right. You need to look down your nose at some of the other citizens.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, I think I can do that. Nonvoters are drooling morons, and people who write “your” when they mean “you’re” are even worse! 
How’m I doing?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Ok, I think I can do that. Nonvoters are drooling morons, and people who write “your” when they mean “you’re” are even worse!
How’m I doing?
[/QUOTE]
Looking down “you’re” nose?
I need to go back to school…
( 
)
[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
I don’t vote. I won’t vote. It’s a huge fucking waste of my time, since any intelligent and informed ballot I might cast will be instantly negated by 10,000 ignorant morons who don’t know an issue from a roll of toilet paper.
The OP is cordially invited to kiss my ass.
[/QUOTE]
I once again find myself in good company. My typical voting day activity is to toss in Wag The Dog and be amazed at how the most absurd fictional satire about the electoral process has become reality. The problem isn’t just that the vast majority of voters are ignorant, but that they’re willfully and deliberate ignorant, latching onto catchphrases and simplistically encapsulated campaign promises designed to cater to candidate polls with no practical viability rather than actually educating themselves on pertinent issues and the candidates background. When “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” or other October Surprises can sway a significant voting demographic despite being demonstratively and without question completely fabricated bullshit, the voters can not longer be said to be exercising critical decision making or responsible control over the electoral process. The control over public opinion as an aggregate is in the hands of a few groups of people who spin media attention and public perception.
So I would argue that, if you don’t have a knowledge of the issues or candidates you intend to vote on or don’t have a strong preference, it is your ethical duty to not vote in blithe ignorance, just as it would be your responsibility not to drive on public roads if you are unfamiliar with the rules of the road or safe operation of a vehicle. If you do have a strong opinion, then by all means you should go vote for (or more likely, against) issues or candidates about which you are passionate, although your real influence as an individual is going to come from public activism, which focuses attention on your specific issue, rather than the amorphous and graduated differences between the positions of opposing mainstream candidates. (Voting for “off-brand” presidential candidates is not only pragmatically ineffectual, owing to the increasingly obsolete Electoral College, but also earns you the enmity of mainstream voters who complain that you are “throwing away your vote,”–so much for the utility of expression one’s opinion via the electoral process.)
But this mentality that everyone has to vote–to the point of obligatory registration–really undermines the notion of a democracy being the will of an informed and involved majority. It instead promotes the worst, base aspects of mob rule and pandering to the lowest common denominator, and frequently comes of as no more sophisticated than tribal alliances. And the utter, irrational rancor the o.p. has against willing non-participants speaks not to an enthusiasm for democratic principles but, I suspect, frustration that the process has not produced the desired results, even though there is no reason to believe that universal participation would improve the system any more than employee morale is raised by having everyone sing the company song before going on shift. It goes along the same lines as the pious who rail against agnosticism and atheism by arguing that we have “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”
Personally, I’ll vote if there is an issue or candidate that I enthusiastically support or oppose, and won’t if there is not. Not participating as legitimate of a choice as not voting, especially when the choices are unpalatable or disinteresting. You’re far more likely to sway a candidate’s position by writing a letter, joining a demonstration, or supporting an interest group than you are by dutifully going into a curtained booth and pulling a lever, offering your tacit approval to the entire electoral machine. To quote John Stewart, “I’m not going to be your monkey.”
But feel free to vote for whichever lizard you like if it makes you feel good.
Stranger
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
But feel free to vote for whichever lizard you like if it makes you feel good.
Stranger
[/QUOTE]
I was really sure that that link was going to be about this.
[QUOTE=Bites When Provoked]
I have no idea why ‘Labor’ isn’t spelled ‘Labour’[/SIZE]
The Labor Party - There’s No Room for U
What I find interesting about the OP and others who get their undies in a bundle about non-voters is their absured assumption that the lazy people would somehow agree with them. Now my entirely stuck up and contrarian belief is that the lazy people would disagree with me so why would I want them to vote? I have a better chance of influencing things if the “silent 40” continue being silent. For this I thank them.
[QUOTE=dalej42]
Also, remember that many voters live in states which are so overwhelmingly Democratic or Republican, that their vote **won’t ** make a difference.
In 2004, I stood in the cold rain for 90 minutes to vote because I lived in Columbus, Ohio.
This year? I know Texas is going McCain. I’ll probably vote, but I wouldn’t stand in the rain for 90 minutes to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, according to the last few polls, Texas will be a swing state this year. SUSA did one there ending 2/28: McCain beat Obama by 1% and Clinton by 7%. That’s not a large margin of victory at all.
Also, mlees, bear in mind that while CA hasn’t voted for a Republican for President since 1988, there are quite a few Representatives elected from CA every two years.
I live in Virginia, and with Mark Warner’s coattails I think we’ll be another swing state this year.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
Also, mlees, bear in mind that while CA hasn’t voted for a Republican for President since 1988, there are quite a few Representatives elected from CA every two years.
[/QUOTE]
At present, there is 19 (R), 34 (D) Representitives from California. 35.8%. Better than I thought. We sure have a inferiority complex about it, though. 
[QUOTE=ntucker]
ETA: I see you’ve already come down a little since I started writing this. Sorry to be so harsh, but I really think that rants about people who don’t vote are misguided and counterproductive. Shame people into getting educated about the issues, not into voting. Once the education comes, you’ll have a hard time keeping people from voting, imho.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t bet on that. The more I know about the issues, the more I know I can’t vote for any of those lunatics.
[QUOTE=Algher]
Bingo. I live in California, which will go for the Dem for President. I like to throw down a protest vote at the polls (Green, Libertarian, or other random ones on the list). I honestly wish we could add “None of the Above” to the polls to let people FORMALLY disclose a vote of “No Confidence.”
[/QUOTE]
Yes, when ‘none of the above’ wins the vote, a do-over has to occur and none of the candidates on the current ballot can run on the next one (better yet, never again). Because honestly, sometimes it is better to not have a representative if the only choices are the droolers and crooks currently running. I’m tired of voting for the best of the worst. It would be nice to put them into history where they belong.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
The Labor politician King O’Malley was both American born and a very strange individual, and one of his big passions was spelling reform, so he got the Labour Party to change its name to the Labor Party.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, Captain Amazing, you really live up to your name! I couldn’t even find that information on the Labor website!
Thanks! 
ETA: I liked your answer too, Bryan Ekers.
[QUOTE=Robert A. Heinlein]
If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.
[/QUOTE]
shrug It’s always been a good enough rationale for me. I figure that if I don’t vote they can’t blame me, but then again if I don’t vote I have no right to complain and I’ll be DAMNED if I’ll abdicate my right to bitch and moan!
I remember we had a president once who proudly stood up for the “silent” voters. He got kind of a big boost from that stance, and when he stood for reelection his opponent only won one state.
Of course, it wasn’t a “silent 40.” It was a “silent majority.”
Given all that has transpired since, perhaps it is better that they are smaller now. 