Yes, I know most of you will be unhappy with this idea but my life experience
shows me that voting is useless.
Try to prove opposite.
No U.
You started this topic, so you get to make your case first, then we either agree with you or we counter with our own arguments.
My one single vote has never swayed an election in my lifetime.
However, if everyone thought this way then no one would vote. Unfortunately people like you (the OP) do in fact seem to think this way. It baffles me why one would not vote, and as time goes on - because of this attitude - we are seeing increasinly poor voter participation at the polls.
As much as I admire George Carlin, he had a habit of not voting because he took pride in being an anarchist, and liked the fact that regardless of who was in power, he had nothing to do with it. I don’t subscribe to this theory.
Personally, I vote because I want to be part of the system. It’s not just my one single vote that counts; it’s the cumulative effect of me, and all my neighbours, and my provincial and federal counterparts who get to ultimately decide who is in power, what policies are enacted, and how my tax dollars are spent. I’m paying goddam bill! You bet I want a say in the matter.
Ok. Lets try.
We live by laws we never voted for, and the people who supposedly represent me vote for their own salaries and benefits like in Congress, for example.
Supreme Court is fine example of non-elected officials.
And if we look at our presidential elections its excellent example of scam as we vote on paper for a person but in reality electoral college chose president.
If everyone who thought their vote doesn’t matter were to vote, their votes in aggregate would matter.
So don’t vote. Fine by me.
OK, let’s.
I voted for many people who I wanted to pass specific legislation and that legislation got passed. It worked for me.
So what? The system is designed to have a life-time judiciary to act as a check and balance against the whims of the people. This is a plus, not a minus.
Since this hasn’t had an impact on the outcome of an election since 1820 I’m not sure I see your point. It’s the way the system was designed to work. It’s not perfect but it doesn’t effect whether my vote matters.
This seems to boil down to the fact that elections don’t always go your way, you don’t understand why you shouldn’t make the Supreme Court of the United States beholden to the whims of the masses instead of the Constitution, and you do not understand how the Electoral College balances out the unequal population distribution with the rights of the states themselves.
Nitpick: it had an effect in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. In the first, the electoral college did not elect a president, and it went to the House of Representatives. In the latter three, the electoral college winner lost the popular vote. (And in 1800, the electoral college bungled the intent of the voters, and the House nearly elected Aaron Burr.)
And this is the benefit of democracy; not that a single vote may influence, or that your position–however just or correct–may be represented, but that in some way you have at least the appearance of being involved and part of the process, and therefore, are less likely to revolt (hence why many dictatorships attempt to maintain a ficition of the electoral process even though their may be only one party or candidate, such as with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states.) The flaw in this reasoning (in a representative democracy) is that even a majority of votes may not actually sway an elected official to do the correct action, even if he or she promised to do so during an election campaign and especially if there is a powerful “swing voting block” or campaign finance interest which compels voting against the public interest. It also does not prevent an influential mob from voting in a measure which is unjust toward a minority, hence why we have a constitution and the appellate court system to determine the fair and legitimate application of laws in accordance with said consitutional statements.
However, part of the problem with the American system is how it limits representation of all points of view, being heavily skewed to a so-called “two party” system. Even though alternative or “third party” candidates are permitted, they are often given short shrift by policymakers and electors, and are almost by definition heavily restricted in presidential and some gubantorial elections. The result is that you often get two points of view that are either effectively the same, or two candidates who, despite their promises during the campaign, will both be influenced to vote the same way by the same corporate interest (which has contributed to both campaigns, which is especially the case in defense contractors and pharmaceutical interests). What you end up with, especially when one or both parties deliberately “polarizes” an issue to emphasize what would otherwise be a minor distinction or distract from another more pressing issue, is that alternative points of view which might otherwise be endorsed–say, the US and its agents should not engage in torture–are overshadowed by a stage-y conflict over just how much the Brand Y candidate doesn’t quite hate terrorists as much as the Brand X candidate. Even when a third party candidate does get elected to an office in an assembly, they are so marginalized by not being directly favored in “party politics” that they may be of little to no effect at all. What is really discouraging about this is that other voters–in particular, ones who are strong advocates of one of the major parties–will harrangue voters who cast for alternative candidates in “wasting” their votes rather than vote for one of the standard party candidates even if neither of those represent anything akin to their position, a point of view reinforced (more by ignorance than averice) by news media whose polls are often stated in terms of false dichotomies. So much for unbridled enthusiasm of the democratic process.
So, democracy is an inherently flawed system, and the American system in particular has both some mitigations (constituion, courts which can override the legislator and executive) and amplifications (entrenched two party system which excludes points of view). We cannot say much that is good about it except that it has generally been remarkably stable, and historically overall trending toward more progressive points of view not withstanding an unchecked heavy slide back toward reactionary social conservatism starting in the 1980s through today. (Witness the presentation of Bill Clinton as a “liberal’s liberal” whose policies and actions were less progressive than many enacted during the “conservative” Nixon regime.)
Personally, I vote when there are candidates that I do not find objectionable and who represent at least one the major issues about which I feel strongly, and do not vote otherwise. Of late, I’ve found myself less and less inclinded to vote because I find it difficult to find candidates who I feel represent a good position on any major issue and do not hold adverse positions (e.g. support for the Afghan and Iraqi wars, opposition to womens’ rights) or a record of turning face on avowed positions (campaign finance reform, support for science research, torture), and when I have voted, I often find myself regretting supporting the candidate for which I voted, even when the opposing team’s candidate was worse still.
Stranger
You mean 1824, I assume, but that was the last time the Electoral College *failed *to elect, and the House of Representatives had to get involved. The subsequent president failed to get even a plurality of votes in 1876, 1888, and 2000 but the electoral college gave him a majority.
Pretend for a moment that we agree with you. What’s your real-world alternative?
But that’s a factor of electoral college, not the electors. The OP is sorely lacking on details about what he’s complaining about. The division of votes to the states doesn’t depend on individuals being selected to cast the actual votes.
If the election was by popular vote the recent campaigns would have been conducted in a much different manner to target large voting blocks. The EC didn’t change the election results so much as it’s the framework by which elections are run.
Just more FOtL blatherings.
In a sense, OP is very correct of course, though it isn’t “politically correct” to say so.
Among large states, Florida had the closest vote in the 2012 Presidential election but Obama still won that state by almost 75,000 votes. So, as a rough estimate, a Florida voter had 1 chance in 75,000 of flipping the state. And unless the election is close, flipping a state wouldn’t flip the election. (Yes, the 2000 election was much closer but that was a rarity.)
If the cost in inconvenience and gasoline to vote is as low as $1 then, assuming the Presidential election is the only one that matters to you, mathematically you’re better off voting only if the election outcome makes a $75,000 difference to you. I’ll guess that very few non-rich people would spend even $20,000 if a genie said that was enough to let them pick between the two candidates.
Play with the numbers if you wish; you’ll probably still conclude that mathematically it’s a waste of time and gasoline to vote, except in a local election that matters to you. This is no secret; many smart people do not vote just for this reason; Freakonomics mentions the fact; etc. This is one reason some countries make voting mandatory.
The reason to vote is Kant’s Categorical Imperative (related to Hillel’s dictum “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn it.”)
OP is to be castigated not for irrationality, but for selfishness.
Come to Colorado and let’s talk.
Hey, nice post/username combo there.
You too! 
I can honestly say that I agree with you, you should not vote. I encourage you to gather as many like-minded individuals as you can find and convince them also not to vote.
I on the other hand choose to do so as my vote will only increase in efficacy as a result of your efforts.
This is exactly true. Canada has been talking about mandatory voting for a couple of elections now - as in Australia - because the number of voters has been steadily declining.
I say forcing people to vote only makes things worse. If you’re to ill informed to get out and vote then stay the hell away. Forcing 40% of eligible voters to make a choice they otherwise wouldn’t make is not going to be a good thing.
I think his has more to do with hockey.