I am repeatedly stunned by the number of people who say “If you don’t vote you don’t have the right to complain.” Or “It is your duty/responsibility to vote.” Or “People died for your right to vote”… and therefore…what?
I know beyond any doubt that suffrage is a right, and as such it can be exercised or not. I think that’s called “freedom” or “liberty” or something like that. So I can’t figure out why choosing to not exercise one right denies you another right, namely the freedom of speech.
If I am equally pleased or equally disgusted with candidates so that I have no preference then why would I pretend that I do? And if you participate in the election of an idiot and he starts screwing my country up don’t I have the right to say “Hey! You elected an idiot and he’s screwing my country up.”
Here is my advice to all citizens: If you don’t know what the hell is going on then DON’T VOTE. But if you do have a preference go right ahead. Voting doesn’t make you more of a citizen. This is just what the Vote Nazis tell everyone to support their fantasies of political participation.
I’m in a similar situation. I have nothing but mistrust for the main party candidates in England. I still vote, in a manner of speaking, by spoiling my ballot. Spoiled ballots are counted and recorded so mine is an appropriate statement of my dislike of all the options. Enough spoiled ballots and the parties will (hopefully) instigate some real reform to make them relevant to the public again.
As such I take a slightly dim view of people who don’t vote because they hate all the candidates. They still have a chance to make a statement.
Having said that, I have nothing against people who don’t vote because they’re just not well informed enough to make a decision. I’d rather have them stay at home than pollute the ballot box with preferences that are based on completely uninformed opinions.
Yes, you do. But if you did nothing to stop the election of that idiot or couldn’t be bothered to vote for a different idiot, you’re not in much of a position to criticize.
It would be great if everyone who voted was well-informed. That’s probably not the issue most of the time, though; I’d wager it’s laziness. I think if everyone (or at least a large percentage) was well-informed, the amount who would have absolutely no preference for any candidate would be small.
I wouldn’t call myself a vote Nazi. Well, who would? I didn’t plan to vote in 2000 and only did after I changed my mind at the last minute. If you want to stay home on principle, just be satisfied that that’s your choice. Don’t expect people to go lauding you for it. Do you want a medal or something?
I agree with that. But if you then complain about the guy you didn’t vote against, I will think of your complaints as hypocritical, or at least not very persuasive.
Is this an acceptable way to phrase a question in GD?
Responsible citizenship *requires * you to “know what the hell is going on”. Voting is just the end result of that, and not the only one, either - there are many other ways in which a responsible citizen takes action betweentimes.
I’ll actually agree that if you don’t care enough to know much, you shouldn’t try to dilute the votes of those of us who do. But then, if you don’t care much, why the complaining?
Here is a scenario. A man looks at the Presidential candidates and decides that he has no preference. All appear to say noble things and make sensible promises. There is no reason to choose amongst them. Four candidates are offered and the man with the vote decides to split his vote evenly by giving each man, theoretically, one-fourth of his suffrage. This is the same as staying home and watching the festivities on t.v.
One man is elected. Soon it is evident that he is incompetent and unethical. He is pushing bills which are unconstitutional. The man who has expressed no preference is up in arms. How is this “hypocritical” behavior? How does a man lose his right to speech simply because he could find no reason to put one candidate above the others?
Incidentally, I never said that I don’t vote. And if that is true then I obviously didn’t say that I was proud of the fact that I don’t vote. And if I care enough to post about self-righteous people ‘guilting’ others into voting-while-ignorant then I obviously care and it makes no sense to ask “if you don’t care much…?”
And I’m sorry about the negative title of the thread. I should have asked: “Is there anything right with their brains?”
ElvisL1ves said it. People have a responsibility as well as a right to participate in the political process. By voting, by staying informed, and by working to change policies they see as wrong or stupid. You’re a member of a community and a nation, not an island unto yourself.
Stay home on Election Day. Stay uninvolved. It’s your right. It’s my right to think less of you for it.
Thank you for that warm welcome, but before I am beaten to a pulp, please let me further elaborate on my position.
I do believe that it is every American’s duty to participate in our election/decision making process but I also believe that it is every American’s duty to do so well-informed about the candidates and issues at hand.
A numb-skull who goes to the voting booth and pushes buttons at random, or does so with only a vague understanding of for what or whom he is voting is shirking his duty every bit as much as someone who stayed in bed on Election Day. This is actually, in my ever-so-humble opinion, a sort of secular blasphemy. They are bastardizing the process, and, to borrow a phrase, polluting the voting pool.
I am embarassed at our palrty voter turn-out every election day, but I would rather see low numbers than uninformed voters tipping the scales. Nevertheless, I do feel that these people are not doing their civic duty.
Lissa doesn’t say it (just implies it), but here’s one: some people out there don’t know what they’re doing. If you know what you’re doing and don’t vote, you’re increasing the power of the idiots to elect a leader.
I appreciate your patriotism (and your sense of humor). It is fine that you believe voting is your duty. But is it fair, because of your personal feelings about participation, to regard it as a “duty” for others?
I’m pretty sure that “rights” are options and not requirements.
How many people actually do this? I would guess that among those who vote, the vast majority have a pretty good idea who they are voting for and are not picking randomly or just pushing buttons or pulling levers for the hell of it, as seems to be opinion of many “pro voters” so far in this thread. They may have some diffuculty with the machinery or the ballots (see Florida), but that doesn’t mean they are all ignorant as to who they are voting for or why. Their reasons may not make sense to allegedly enlightened folks, but to the the people doing the voting, the reasons make all the sense they need to.
And who judges how informed a voter is anyway? I would bet that there are several people on this board alone who firmly believe that anyone who would willingly cast a vote for Candidate X is clearly ignorant, uninformed, and one of the very dolts whom you wish to keep away from the polls. Just read through any Bush or Dean thread here in GD or BBQ and you can probably readily identify such people.
Myself, I am of the opinion that I should not have to choose between “the lesser of two evils”, as so often seems to be the case the days. Why, then, should I be mandated to choose any evil? If I do not feel any of the candidates are qualified to run this country (including the no-chance 3rd party ones), why should I be scorned for not being willing to put any of these people in office? Especially since we do not have the luxury of having “spoiled” votes count, as Gomez has. I may feel that my reasons for withholding my vote are every bit as reasoned as yours for choosing one candidate over the rest - does that make me uninformed?
Perhaps the voter turnouts are low because much of the country disagrees with the idea that anyone must vote. Zealotry of any sort does tend to be a fringe position, after all.
As I see it, our system is a sort of reciprocal agreement: we elect leaders, decide on issues, and our representatives put those in motion. Our Republic’s system depends on the voters. As it’s set up, there is no government without the populace electing it.
We certainly all recieve benefits from government: they keep us safe from invasion of foreign powers, fund programs to assist us when we’re down, educate our children, regulate various industries for our saftey, and myriad other functions. It’s my opinion that our side of the “bargain” is to contribute to the decision-making processes with our votes.
Maybe the Girl Scouts had undue influence on my point of view in this matter, but it’s my opinion that we are obligated to participate in the electoral process, just as it is our duty to pay taxes, or sit on juries when asked to do so. We’re all part of the system: we all benefit from it, and thus should contribute to it. We can’t expect government to run itself-- that’s not the intention of our system.
After the last presidential election, my husband (who teaches at our local branch campus) took an informal poll of his students. He asked all who had voted to raise their hands. About half of the class had done so, which impressed him. He then asked how many of those voters had watched any of the debates. Few had. He asked how many of them had read a newspaper, watched TV news, visited their candidate’s web-site, or read a news magazine article about their candidate. Only a minority had.
He then asked them how they had decided which way to cast their vote. Most of those who did not avail themselves of traditional information outlets reported that it was based third-hand information from friends, relatives, religious leaders, or co-workers. Further probing, he found that a good deal of the information they had was incorrect.
Class that day became a political forum. To his distress, he found that a good deal of the students had loud, strident opinions, and considered themselves well-informed, but had little real information to back them up.
So yes, I have a fear that a portion of the voters going to the booths have little real knowledge of for what or whom they’re voting. They vote based on rumor or what their friends think.
Right. Personally, I rarely know much about candidates for any office other than President, Governor, or US Senator. So I used to not vote for other offices on the theory that other people who knew more should make the decision. Of course, the problem is that those other people who are voting don’t know squat about the Registrar of Wills candidates either. So lately I vote a straight ticket, which like all the alternatives is imperfect.
I strongly believe that there are lots of wonderful people who don’t have an interest in politics. I see no reason for them to change and vote.
Have any of you that don’t go vote ever thought that your vote for County Comissioner, Dogcatcher, or whatever is much more weighty, per-capita, than votes for President or Governor? Also that your vote for City Commissioner may well affect your life much more than your vote for President?
I’m in the camp that thinks it’s every citizen’s responsibility to take the time to know the issues and candidates, and then go vote your conscience.
If there’s a particular race you’re uncertain about, by-pass that one, but there are certainly SOME races that you feel strongly about, and the outcome of which will affect your life.
So, yeah. If you couldn’t be bothered to study the issues and vote, you’ve lost some of your right to bitch about the results, IMHO.
I bet there are a lot of people under the impression that I was under – if you go to vote, you must vote for ALL the people/propositions/whatevers on the ballot. I was only disabused of this notion during the last state election here. I bet that scares some people away – the sort who know they damn well want to vote for Candidate Y for governor but have no idea about the six people running for some mysterious local office. So they don’t vote at all, even for the candidate they know about. I suspect with all the moving people do these days there’s a lot more of that going on. Louisiana isn’t like anywhere I’ve ever lived, for one thing. Eek.
I figure if there are some races you just don’t know/don’t care about (for example, many city, county, and state positions) then you should get the voting endorsements of a newspaper or other source that you trust to make a good recommendation (keeping in mind the biases of the source, of course) and vote that way.
I do think that voting is a civic duty. It is not asking much to ask citizens to show up and cast a ballot a few times a year. It takes maybe 20 minutes - usually less. (Especially in states where getting an absentee ballot is trivial. I know people who have voted every election and haven’t been to the polls in years.)
I really do feel that a person’s complaint has much less meaning if he or she didn’t vote. That person had a chance to do something about it - and didn’t.
That’s what I do for things like Port Commissioner. I’m not even sure what a Port Commissioner does… but if I’ve read 3 newspapers, all of whom endorse Jane Smith and say that John Jones is an incompetent idiot, I vote for Smith. If they disagree, I read why they endorse one candidate over the other, and choose based on which lines of reasoning they use and how I judge those lines. Especially with the web and all the election information on the web, it’s not that hard.