YOU! AMERICAN! YOU BETTAH VOTE!

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:23 am

Considering my own particular political stance, I think the idea that I can't complain just because I don't vote is utterly ridiculous. My problem isn't with any particular candidate, after all, but the entire system as a whole.

As my own personal bit of propaganda on this most auspicious of election days, let me just say . . .

Make your vote a no-vote!

Laemkral · Post by **Laemkral** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:25 am

I've got to agree. A person can complain about their government no matter what. It's your right and you should exercise it. Your argument may not carry as much weight, but you can bitch all you want.

A great deal of the "not voting" is simply disillusioned voters who see a process that they don't want to participate in. Which really doesn't change anything, so it continues election after election.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:31 am

Get out and vote! Conduct an exit poll, and kick people in the shins who didn't vote like you did. That'll teach them.

I still can't decide who to vote for.

Talent(R) - I like how the guy is doing overall. He's not a bad senator. And most of the negative ads against him have been proven wrong with evidence. But he's anti-stem-cell, and I'm excessively pro-stem-cell.

McCaskill(D) - She's done a lot of bad things - didn't pay her taxes (confirmed), refused to audit her husband's nursing home businesses while auditing others (confirmed), changes her opinions (confirmed with documentation) based on the zip code she's campaigning in, and all the good advertisements about her point to things she did in 1999 or 2002. Nothing in the last four years - not one thing. But, she's entirely pro-stem-cell.

Both of them have similar views on all the other issues I care about. Both of them have run negative ads. Lots of them.

So...

Do I vote for the guy I like, who is opposed to the issue I feel is important, or the woman I do not like, who is for the issue I feel is important?

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:38 am

Write-in vote for "None of the Above".

Having had to watch and listen to the Talent/McCaskill ads myself (you can't get away from the damn things!), they all seemed to bleed together after a while. It's been getting harder and harder to tell just which person each particular ad is supposed to be supporting.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:46 am

Jim North wrote:Write-in vote for "None of the Above".

Having had to watch and listen to the Talent/McCaskill ads myself (you can't get away from the damn things!), they all seemed to bleed together after a while. It's been getting harder and harder to tell just which person each particular ad is supposed to be supporting.

You got that right.

Worse, last night I saw a fricking van plastered with political signs and a large bullhorn on it's roof. What's up with that - I thought that went out in the 1950's.

I hate, HATE being "the State whose election everyone is watching".

Grabmygoblin · Post by **Grabmygoblin** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:56 am

rkolter, it's entirely up to you- but as a reluctant democrat, I always vote for the person who will hopefully do some good while in office but that I usually want to punch in the nards.

seriously kiddies, vote.

it's a messed up system- why the hell is my vote worth less than one from one of the "swing states"?! but even if it is a messed up system, VOTE. when you don't vote it's less a protest than a vote neither politican has to worry about. you disenfranchise yourself, which is frankly insulting to anyone who values democracy. work within the system, it's the only way to change things well short of taking up arms. maybe we'll see some politicans come out of this election who are willing to push for election reforms.

if nothing else, remember how hard people have worked to allow you to vote... and how hard people continue to fight for democracy.

Escushion · Post by **Escushion** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:16 am

Now now, don't be judgemental. People not voting has been a good thing in the past. In the late 1800's, some Southererns boycotted voting because they didn't think blacks should have the right to vote. Thus, blacks began winning political positions in the South.

So while I discourage laziness, if someone's made the concious choice to vote, I don't stop them, as maybe something good will come from their non-involvement.

Nanda · Post by **Nanda** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:23 am

*sticks her "I voted" button on her monitor*

Grabmygoblin · Post by **Grabmygoblin** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:25 am

but those blacks just a decade later were denied the right to vote, and had to fight to get it back. maybe it's just that I've taken too many civics classes (ok, none, but I've picked up on the lessons from years of study) but I don't understand why people think boycotting voting will make their voices heard. we've had the lowest turn-out amongst nations for years and no politican has really stepped forward in response. this election will be no different.

but anyway, this is not the place for debate, so I leave you with The Daily Show Rocks.

Legendary · Post by **Legendary** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:26 am

rkolter wrote:Talent(R) - I like how the guy is doing overall. He's not a bad senator. And most of the negative ads against him have been proven wrong with evidence. But he's anti-stem-cell, and I'm excessively pro-stem-cell.

McCaskill(D) - She's done a lot of bad things - didn't pay her taxes (confirmed), refused to audit her husband's nursing home businesses while auditing others (confirmed), changes her opinions (confirmed with documentation) based on the zip code she's campaigning in, and all the good advertisements about her point to things she did in 1999 or 2002. Nothing in the last four years - not one thing. But, she's entirely pro-stem-cell.

About Talent... Is he opposed to ALL stem cell research (including Adult Stem Cells and Stem Cells from umbilical cords) or just Embryonic Stem Cells? If it's the latter, I don't have much of a problem with it, but if it's the former, I doubt I could trust somebody with that poor of a grasp on science.

Escushion · Post by **Escushion** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:59 am

grabmygoblin wrote:but those blacks just a decade later were denied the right to vote, and had to fight to get it back. maybe it's just that I've taken too many civics classes (ok, none, but I've picked up on the lessons from years of study) but I don't understand why people think boycotting voting will make their voices heard. we've had the lowest turn-out amongst nations for years and no politican has really stepped forward in response. this election will be no different.

but anyway, this is not the place for debate, so I leave you with The Daily Show Rocks.

Oh, I'm aware of that. I'm pretty sure the idiots who thought they'd make their voices heard by not voting smarted up real quick. Unfortunately. I'm just saying it's not always bad when people decide not to vote, depending on the people

. Overall I still think voting is the best way to get your say across, but if someone's simply going to choose not to do it, then their participation isn't necessary.

I wish I had cable so I could watch the Daily Show tonight.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:01 am

Legendary wrote:
rkolter wrote:Talent(R) - I like how the guy is doing overall. He's not a bad senator. And most of the negative ads against him have been proven wrong with evidence. But he's anti-stem-cell, and I'm excessively pro-stem-cell.

McCaskill(D) - She's done a lot of bad things - didn't pay her taxes (confirmed), refused to audit her husband's nursing home businesses while auditing others (confirmed), changes her opinions (confirmed with documentation) based on the zip code she's campaigning in, and all the good advertisements about her point to things she did in 1999 or 2002. Nothing in the last four years - not one thing. But, she's entirely pro-stem-cell.
About Talent... Is he opposed to ALL stem cell research (including Adult Stem Cells and Stem Cells from umbilical cords) or just Embryonic Stem Cells? If it's the latter, I don't have much of a problem with it, but if it's the former, I doubt I could trust somebody with that poor of a grasp on science.

He's opposed to embryonic stem cell research specifically. But he also opposes making money available to any form of stem cell research, and blocking other unrelated grants to companies that attempt to research in Missouri with their own money.

I on the other hand, am for embryonic stem cell research, and unquestionably for other forms of stem cell research and consider it abhorrant that a company might be blackmailed into not doing research by having their other unrelated grants threatened.

ChibiJess · Post by **ChibiJess** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:41 am

I have absolutely no idea who to vote for.

I don't know what any of the politicians stand for, and the commercials and information have been more about why this candidate eats babies, or why that one will steal your soul.

I know the country is having issues - sure - but I'd really like to see some one actually say what they will do to make it better, not what their opponent has done to make it worse.

I'm so confused

Dotty · Post by **Dotty** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:52 am

I think people who say if you don't vote you can't complain are silly. That's my personal opinion, because as Sortelli said, it's a way to protest or to show your opinion.

For example, last election in Canada, I didn't vote. My choices were primarily Liberal, PC, and NDP....and those other two parties, the Marijuana one and the Green one. Both I consider absolutely insane.

So I had Three Choices. NDP had policies regarding health care that I really didn't care for, at all, so there was no way I would vote for them. Liberals were headed by Paul Martin. I hate that guy. PC are headed by Stephen Harper, who I also despise.

I didn't vote because I had no one to vote for. No one really backed anything or said anything or did anything or supported or decided or even governed anything I particularily liked or cared about. My choices were horrible as a whole.

And yes, I will continue to complain about Stephen Harper, because while he -DOES- do good things on occasion (I'm particularily fond of his cracking down on street racing) he does a lot of stupid things too. (Refusal to lower the flag on the hill rings a bell, his current environmental plan is a gross waste of money is in ways hurts the environment more, etc)

....that and he has publicly stated he'd like to sell the Maritime Provinces to the United States....way to support your country, jackass.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:00 am

TdotOdot2k wrote:....that and he has publicly stated he'd like to sell the Maritime Provinces to the United States....way to support your country, jackass.

Well, we bought the Louisiana Purchase for $0.03 an acre in 1803. Factoring in 3% inflation per year since, that's $9.01 an acre today.

Seems fair. We'll take it!

Escushion · Post by **Escushion** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:06 am

TdotOdot2k wrote:I think people who say if you don't vote you can't complain are silly. That's my personal opinion, because as Sortelli said, it's a way to protest or to show your opinion.

You're not showing anything; you're just getting nulled out. Whether you vote or not, someone's going to get elected. Way to protest, woo!

Dotty · Post by **Dotty** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:16 am

Escushion wrote:
TdotOdot2k wrote:I think people who say if you don't vote you can't complain are silly. That's my personal opinion, because as Sortelli said, it's a way to protest or to show your opinion.
You're not showing anything; you're just getting nulled out. Whether you vote or not, someone's going to get elected. Way to protest, woo!

Way to miss the point. They still record who doesn't vote. My reasoning for not voting, which you skimmed over, was solid. There was no one for me to vote for. I can vote for Corruption (Liberals) a man who doesn't view the maritime provinces as part of Canada (PC) a guy who wants to slash the health care system (NDP) a bunch of Eco-nuts (Green Party) or a group who answers all questions from education to health care with "We'll Legalize Pot". (Marijuana Party)

My point stands. I have every right to bitch about who's running my country, because they're all idiots. Thanks for reading my post the first time.

Kirb · Post by **Kirb** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:19 am

If only the Rhino party were still in existence.

Escushion · Post by **Escushion** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:20 am

Think of it this way: Why should they care? You're not offering any positive opposition, you're just saving anyone the trouble of having to be concerned with what you think.

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:24 am

I don't vote. Obviously.

I don't vote becacause no one in the government (or trying to get into the government) represents my views. The closest that gets to it is the Libertarian Party, and even they aren't close enough.

If I voted, then it would be a lie. I would be lying to the government, I would be lying to the people around me, I would be lying to myself, and regardless of whether or not the person I voted for got into office, I would still be helping along a system that - as a whole - I do not agree with. I would be causing more damage to the system if I voted than if I didn't. If it comes down to the choice of being lazy or being a liar, I will choose being lazy.

Not voting, if allowed to just go by without anyone saying anything about it, yes, is a rather feeble protest. However, when it is explicitly stated en masse, it is a definite protest, whether it ends up having any major effect or not. The outcome does not blunt its meaningfulness.

Also, just because it doesn't have any effect this year doesn't mean such will continue to be the case. If people continue to get more and more fed up with the system, then fewer and fewer will vote . . . I'm sure when there's only about 2,000 votes on who should be President, someone will eventually sit up and take notice, neh?