Which do you think has more dignity to it? This is regarding primarily Presidential elections.
Voting even if you haven’t investigated the candidates because dangit, people died for this right.
Staying home if you know you haven’t researched enough because dangit, it would be mockery of those heroes’ deaths to vote uninformed.
I would say that it’s better not to vote if you know you are relatively ignorant. Obviously, the ideal would be to read up and pick who you like the most. What do you guys think?
I hate to admit it, but in local elections, I’ve frequently voted based on party affiliation if I wasn’t familiar with the candidates. I rationalize this by saying one farmer on the school board is about the same as the other farmer.
If I’m totally stumped or just don’t care, I’ll skip an issue.
But like you said, it just doesn’t seem right to not vote at all. It wasn’t all that long ago that not everyone could vote. Hard to imagine.
Go to the polling place and find out how painless it is.
Takes only a minute. There are usually lots of parking spaces and lots of booths.
The long lines of decades ago were caused by voting machines being too scarce because they were expensive.
Now that cheap punch cards are used, there are plenty of voters voting at once.
Did you forget to look everyone up? No problem. Just vote the ones you know.
Want to vote for some based on party only, that’s a valid strategy.
Want to vote against everyone? That’s legal too. May seem hard, but you can do it. Vote yes on one proposition or bond issue and all the candidates get a lower percentage of the total votes cast. That will send them a message. No crowing about mandates, then!
But very many people simply read the voter pamphlet right there in the voting room or make up their minds standing at a booth. That’s valid too.
Hate to vote because the news says sombody already won?
Don’t buy that! There are many local people and programs needing your decision! Go even if the national games are over.
Absolutely hate going out? Vote absentee. It’s easy and free and more and more popular.
Every single voter has my respect, and the people who stayed home don’t.
Besides, it’s not too hard to find out about the candidates… just go to GD, read the anti-Squicker threads, read the anti-Felcher threads, and figure that the reality is somewhere in the middle of the two
I’m with you, spooje, I think everybody’s got a strategy for voting for people and stuff they don’t know about. Normally I will read the papers for several weeks before the elections and go to local “talks”, but some years I’m less dedicated.
I will not vote for incumbents. I don’t like voting for republicans. If there is a democratic incumbent, I vote for a third party. Green, libertarian, peace and freedom are voted for in that order. Unless there’s a non-incumbent woman in the race, I vote for a skirt every time. I won’t vote for anybody who won’t wear their glasses in public (my federal house rep does that, it bugs me). I won’t vote for anybody who cannot construct clear sentences in their candidate statements. I won’t vote for anybody who says “We must protect the children” when asked about non-child safety issues. Of course, I have more relevant single-issues, but they are less interesting.
For issues or (here in California) propositions, I will vote for money for schools and parks. I will vote against more money for prisons.
My dad will vote against anything that will cost him money.
A friend of mine will register with the party he hates for the primaries and vote for the biggest wacko on the ballot. He figures this gives the moderates of the party he likes a bigger chance. Maybe he’s right.
Doesn’t this sort of beg the question:
Why not take a few hours out of your life and become informed? Hell, those candidites probably have there own web page. You don’t even have to stand up.
So my answer is, neither choice has a lot of dignity to it.
