Do you vote? (poll)

Tucker Case said:

That's what gets me. People are under this delusion that their vote counts, despite all of the evidence proving otherwise. The **** about "If you don't vote, then you are part of the problem" is so astronomically out of touch with reality that it boggles my mind that some people believe it. Believing your vote counts is the real problem. If people copped on to the fact that it's all a dog and pony show, maybe then the problems would actually get fixed.

Click to expand...

It is a way of making people feel it is their duty to vote because no one wants to be the problem. Although, in local elections, your vote actually matters more than anything else. I've read articles that say getting rid of the electoral college in order for popular vote is a way to make people's individual votes to matter more. My favorite thing ever though, is the Futurama episode about this exact subject.

Tucker Case said:

That's what gets me. People are under this delusion that their vote counts, despite all of the evidence proving otherwise. The **** about "If you don't vote, then you are part of the problem" is so astronomically out of touch with reality that it boggles my mind that some people believe it. Believing your vote counts is the real problem. If people copped on to the fact that it's all a dog and pony show, maybe then the problems would actually get fixed.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The normalcy bias is a strong force.

radcen said:

Neither extreme is accurate.

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

I would phrase it, "If you vote, but don't vote intelligently, you are part of the problem."

Click to expand...

Who cares if someone votes "intelligently" or "stupidly"? The options are **** regardless because of teh two party-system. No amount of due dilligence is going to change that.

"Intelligently" meaning doing some due diligence and assessing the candidates not only on what they promise (that you agree with), but what they can actually deliver. For example, Paul claims he will cut 5 departments, and Perry wants to make Congress part-time and cut their pay. Neither is going to happen, especially the part-time Congress thing, so to me it's a waste of oxygen for them to even make the claims.

Click to expand...

There hasn't been a candidate for President in my lifetime who didn't make those kinds of absurd promises. President's don't have anywhere near the power the candidates pretend they have. I haven't found one who didn't make promises they cannot possibly deliver.

Tucker Case said:

There hasn't been a candidate for President in my lifetime who didn't make those kinds of absurd promises. President's don't have anywhere near the power the candidates pretend they have. I haven't found one who didn't make promises they cannot possibly deliver.

Click to expand...

That's a big part of my point. Too many people actually fall for this crap, thus too many people aren't voting intelligently.

radcen said:

That's a big part of my point. Too many people actually fall for this crap, thus too many people aren't voting intelligently.

Click to expand...

So are you saying that casting no vote can count as voting intelligently?

Or are you saying that, in order to vote intelligently one should totally ignore the nonsense that the candidates spew and look only at the promises they make which aren't complete and utter bull**** and then cast a vote for one of them?

If its the former, I agree; if it's the latter, I disagree. I'll explain that more if it turns out to be the former.

I agree 100% with the fact that too many people fall for the crap, though and thus are not voting intelligently.

I compare voting in America to shopping at Walmart. There is the appearance of choice, but underneath the fancy labels are the same low quality, imitation garbage no matter what one chooses.

As far as voting for a President they simply don't do that much. They don't have that big an impact on the economy or legislation, except vetoing something for their party. They can make decisions on the military and put out executive orders but they're more symbolic anymore than real managers. They're role as leader is more of a cheerleader for the nation than policy maker. You appoint good agency heads, campaign a lot, play some golf and take vacations praying you never have to open the "football" and push the button.

Tucker Case said:

So are you saying that casting no vote can count as voting intelligently?

Or are you saying that, in order to vote intelligently one should totally ignore the nonsense that the candidates spew and look only at the promises they make which aren't complete and utter bull**** and then cast a vote for one of them?

If its the former, I agree; if it's the latter, I disagree. I'll explain that more if it turns out to be the former.

I agree 100% with the fact that too many people fall for the crap, though and thus are not voting intelligently.

Click to expand...

I think it can be either, depending on the given election.

If neither candidate is worthy in one's eyes, and both candidates are roughly the same, then I see no issue with not voting. I would view not voting in this case as a form of protest, but I'm fine with that. I think that's valid.

If neither candidate is worthy, but one candidate is far worse than the other, then as unpleasant as it may be it is still beneficial to vote for the "lesser of two evils" simply in an attempt to keep the "greater evil" out. It's not ideal, but it's practical self-interest.

Having said that, regarding the person who NEVER votes on literally anything ever, they have chosen to allow others to choose for them, and thus have morally forfeited their right to complain about the results. (Not saying you do this, but some people do... my mother being one of them.)

Approximately 50% of those who COULD vote are registered to vote. In a well-publicized election, about 50% of the people registered to vote actually exercise that right. This is the method of the right-wing election campaigning, they only need to get 26% (twenty-five percent plus one) of the population to win an election. This is how a minority gets control of government.

I not only vote in every election, I am a poll worker who makes it possible for others to vote. Election day is a long day, beginning at 6:30 a.m. or earlier, and ending sometime after 7:00 p.m. For those hours, poll workers must take a lunch, since it is forbidden to leave the polls for any reason, and are paid $87 a day here.

radcen said:

I think it can be either, depending on the given election.

If neither candidate is worthy in one's eyes, and both candidates are roughly the same, then I see no issue with not voting. I would view not voting in this case as a form of protest, but I'm fine with that. I think that's valid.

If neither candidate is worthy, but one candidate is far worse than the other, then as unpleasant as it may be it is still beneficial to vote for the "lesser of two evils" simply in an attempt to keep the "greater evil" out. It's not ideal, but it's practical self-interest.

Having said that, regarding the person who NEVER votes on literally anything ever, they have chosen to allow others to choose for them, and thus have morally forfeited their right to complain about the results. (Not saying you do this, but some people do... my mother being one of them.)

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are talking about non-presidential elections, then, because presidential elections have little to do with individual votes of the vast majority of people. Take me, for instance, I live in Illinois.

The outcome of the presidential election is already decided here, regardless of how I vote, well before the election ever happens. If I vote for the winner, it'll make no difference, if I vote against the winner it'll make no difference because very single one of my state's electoral college votes are going to a predetermined candidate based on teh political views of the peopel in my state.

As far as never voting goes, you really need to know what a person's beliefs are before you can claim they have morally forfeited their right to complain about the results. I believe that the two parties are identically bad for the country. Nether one is superior to the other, and all candidates from either party suck and are essentially pushing the same crap, just with different decorations. This carries over to pretty much every candidate from one of those two parties. Any candidate worth voting for will never make it out of the primaries because they are, by virtue of being good candidates, going to reject the nonsense from their party enough to sabotage any chance of getting the nomination for that party.

If someone flat-out rejects the two-party system and thinks that any candidate that is a part of that system is, for all practical purposes, equally as bad as any another one from that system, then they are morally obligated to not vote. They have forfeited nothing, because they oppose the entire system.

Granted, I will often cast a vote for a third party candidate for president knowing the following reasons:

1. My vote doesn't count in Illinois regardless of who I vote for
2. A vote against the two-party system can actually count for something by way of voicing opposition to that system.
3. If enough people vote third party, it increases the chances that third party candidates will be invited to the debates. Even if they don't win, some of their ideas that break away form teh two-party mold could take root.

In local elections, it's different. I will sometimes vote for the lesser of two evils because, frankly, Chicago is a borderline one-party system.

I vote in every election. Oregon has "Vote by Mail" elections, so it's easy. But, I always have voted, even before the mail in vote, since I was 18, and I'm "old" now.

Tucker Case said:

Unless you live in a swing state, your vote has absolutely no bearing on who the next president will be. If you are lucky enough to live in a swing state, your vote has a very, very tiny effect on it.

I don't live in a swing state (It hasn't been a swing state in my voting lifetime, although it was one once). Therefore, no matter what I do, the president will be decided by others, and unfortunately, most of them aren't very bright.

There is a very strongly held myth in this country that every vote counts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost nobody's vote actually counts.

Click to expand...

This is similar to the logic I use not to play the Lottery - the chances of winning are almost as great of winning if you play or not! However, I don't view voting as playing the lottery, even if my vote is overridden by others.

I believe that the more people that vote, the more representative is our government.

I see it as a duty of every citizen. Having fulfilled that duty, I then have the right, as someone that has participated in the selection process to complain if that person doesn't live up to their promise to get my vote.

Catawba said:

This is similar to the logic I use not to play the Lottery - the chances of winning are almost as great of winning if you play or not!

Click to expand...

Not quite accurate. The odds of winning some prize in the lottery are much better than the odds of winning the jackpot, and even the odds of winning the jackpot approach 100% over a sufficient number of entries. Playing the lottery is a matter of opportunity cost-- your odds of winning more than you put in, versus your odds of making a better profit using your money for something else.

That doesn't apply to voting, since you only get one vote which has a zero percent chance of winning since it isn't even counted.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Not quite accurate. The odds of winning some prize in the lottery are much better than the odds of winning the jackpot, and even the odds of winning the jackpot approach 100% over a sufficient number of entries. Playing the lottery is a matter of opportunity cost-- your odds of winning more than you put in, versus your odds of making a better profit using your money for something else.

Click to expand...

Yep, that is the way I see, the more people participate, the greater the chance their government will be representative.

Show me a successful Democracy with an apathetic electorate?

I do my best to vote in every election made available to me.

Often times, I don't support the current establishment so I don't vote. If I vote, it is in protestation and voting out incumbents.

I take my vote seriously. People died for my right to vote and I don't my caste my vote haphazardly. If I vote, I will cast my full vote.

Catawba said:

Show me a successful Democracy with an apathetic electorate?

Click to expand...

Show me a successful democracy. Outside of the United States-- or Canada, barely-- I can't think of a single democratic government on the face of the Earth that I would not be morally obligated to attempt to overthrow if I were a citizen. There's certainly no such government in Europe or Asia, and I would be deeply surprised to learn of any in Latin America or Africa.

Viktyr Korimir said:

Show me a successful democracy. Outside of the United States-- or Canada, barely-- I can't think of a single democratic government on the face of the Earth that I would not be morally obligated to attempt to overthrow if I were a citizen. There's certainly no such government in Europe or Asia, and I would be deeply surprised to learn of any in Latin America or Africa.

Click to expand...

To each his own, I'll take a Democracy over a dictatorship anytime.

Catawba said:

To each his own, I'll take a Democracy over a dictatorship anytime.

Click to expand...

There was a time that I would have said the same thing, but I'm looking at the democracies of the world today and I can't say that I approve of the results.

Viktyr Korimir said:

There was a time that I would have said the same thing, but I'm looking at the democracies of the world today and I can't say that I approve of the results.

Click to expand...

Do you think our Democracy would be made stronger or weaker by more participation by the public into making our Democracy work?

Viktyr Korimir said:

Show me a successful democracy. Outside of the United States-- or Canada, barely-- I can't think of a single democratic government on the face of the Earth that I would not be morally obligated to attempt to overthrow if I were a citizen. There's certainly no such government in Europe or Asia, and I would be deeply surprised to learn of any in Latin America or Africa.

Click to expand...

Jeez, ignore my continent why don't you.

Every election, as if my life, and the life of my beloved nation, depended upon it.

Catawba said:

Do you think our Democracy would be made stronger or weaker by more participation by the public into making our Democracy work?

Click to expand...

Depends upon what you mean by “the public”.

spud_meister said:

Jeez, ignore my continent why don't you.

Click to expand...

You're Asian, spud. Hell, your people can't even drive on the right side of the road.

GPS_Flex said:

Depends upon what you mean by “the public”.

Click to expand...

"We the People"