• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How important is voting?

How important is voting?

  • Very

    Votes: 36 64.3%

  • Important, but futile

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • Meh

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Not very

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Not at all

    Votes: 3 5.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 10.7%
  • Total voters
    56
ernst barkmann said:
The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular Govts. and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.-- james madison

i have read early American court cases ,where people have sued because they could not vote, in one ruling the judge said flat out....." you sold your land, and your not paying taxes anymore, so you have no vote"
Click to expand...
And Libertarians wonder why others don't want to turn back the clock and live under that restrictive and bias system. :roll:
 
MoSurveyor said:
And Libertarians wonder why others don't want to turn back the clock and live under that restrictive and bias system. :roll:
Click to expand...

i dont think you even know what your are talking about in this situation.

and i made no statement supporting any position, i stated what was created in early american history.

your weak arguments are getting as bad as sangha's.
 
Last edited:
Voting is not important at all and only the brainwashed believe that it is.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes, those that only take and give nothing in return.

those that want to use the power of government to prey on others, for their benefit.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying this is your sole focus, but you did bring it up... land ownership. There are people today (not so much back then) that choose to not own property. They feel they can do better by renting and investing their money rather than get tied down by home ownership. They're not slacking by any stretch of the imagination. How does their status jive with what you have said in this thread thus far?
 
radcen said:
I'm not saying this is your sole focus, but you did bring it up... land ownership. There are people today (not so much back then) that choose to not own property. They feel they can do better by renting and investing their money rather than get tied down by home ownership. They're not slacking by any stretch of the imagination. How does their status jive with what you have said in this thread thus far?
Click to expand...

we my statement you just quoted, does not reflect owning property.

property owning is just what the founders believed in, and they left matters such as voting up to the states.

but i do think their is problem when people can vote for politicians who seek to raise tax on people of different classes to make those same voters happy in their envy.

according to the founders government is supposed to treat everyone the same, and not give preference to anyone, any class, no matter much much they have or how little they have.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
we my statement you just quoted, does not reflect owning property.

property owning is just what the founders believed in, and they left matters such as voting up to the states.

but i do think their is problem when people can vote for politicians who seek to raise tax on people of different classes to make those same voters happy in their envy.

according to the founders government is supposed to treat everyone the same, and not give preference anyone, any class, no matter much much they have or how little they have.
Click to expand...

Which is, of course, why they wanted only white men to vote.
 
Voting is important but futile. It is futile because the game is rigged with the two party system. The clearest example of this is in 3 for instances.

1. 2000 election -- victim: Ralph Nader
2. 2012 election -- victim: Gary Johnson
3. 2012 election -- victim: Ron Paul

The first two should be obvious for the fact that they weren't allowed to debate. Why? Because some corporate based non authorized "authority" came up with a set of arbitrary rules determining what qualifications must be met in order to get a seat at the table. Among which is a minimum 15% polling status. The Problem, this same authority who contributes monies to the polling agencies makes sure the candidates they wish to seclude i.e. Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson, are left odd most polls. This is very convenient. Need to poll at 15% and then exclude their names from the majority polls. This isn't the only transgression but it is the most prominent.

The third, Ron Paul should be obvious to anyone who paid attention to the RNC convention last election cycle with the inter-party parliamentary parlor tricks the governing authority took to move the goal posts to have his delegates seated.

All of this plus more which I haven't the time nor inclination to get into shows me that their are forces at work within our electoral system which are determined to corral the voting populous into choosing between two individuals of these unseen forces choosing. The unseen force being the consensus of corporate interests.
 
PeteEU said:
Voting should be mandatory for all citizens that can legally vote. What is the point of having a democracy if people dont vote or participate.. then we might as well have kept our kings/queens/emperors.
Click to expand...

What's the point of faux democracy?
 
ChezC3 said:
Voting is important but futile. It is futile because the game is rigged with the two party system. The clearest example of this is in 3 for instances.

1. 2000 election -- victim: Ralph Nader
2. 2012 election -- victim: Gary Johnson
3. 2012 election -- victim: Ron Paul

The first two should be obvious for the fact that they weren't allowed to debate. Why? Because some corporate based non authorized "authority" came up with a set of arbitrary rules determining what qualifications must be met in order to get a seat at the table. Among which is a minimum 15% polling status. The Problem, this same authority who contributes monies to the polling agencies makes sure the candidates they wish to seclude i.e. Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson, are left odd most polls. This is very convenient. Need to poll at 15% and then exclude their names from the majority polls. This isn't the only transgression but it is the most prominent.

The third, Ron Paul should be obvious to anyone who paid attention to the RNC convention last election cycle with the inter-party parliamentary parlor tricks the governing authority took to move the goal posts to have his delegates seated.

All of this plus more which I haven't the time nor inclination to get into shows me that their are forces at work within our electoral system which are determined to corral the voting populous into choosing between two individuals of these unseen forces choosing. The unseen force being the consensus of corporate interests.
Click to expand...

If you want to make a difference, become active in local politics. You have to stop the rascals before they can get out of town, and this is where you do it. It's also where your vote counts. Check out the percentage of voters in your community who actually vote in local/county/district elections, particularly in non-Presidential years. Even when the issues are important, in my town, it's about 6-10% in good years.
 
radcen said:
How important is voting?

  1. Very.
  2. Important, but futile.
  3. Meh.
  4. Not very.
  5. Not at all.
  6. Other

Are you part of the solution, or are you part of the problem?

  • If you're an idiot/uninformed voter, you're part of the problem. You're lazy and/or a sucker for the politicians.
  • If you don't vote at all, because you don't care (and, hence are probably not even here at Debate Politics to read this), you're part of the problem. You're letting the politicians have their way unchallenged.
  • If you don't vote at all, because you think it's futile, you're part of the problem. I don't give a rat's arse how informed you are, or even if you're correct in your conclusions, you're still a sucker for the politicians by providing complicit approval for their actions.
  • I'd rather you be incorrect and vote (provided you're sincere and earnest in your research), than correct and not vote. You may not be correct in your conclusions, but at least you're not a sucker or an enabler. I can accept that.

Personally, I don't deny the feelings of futility, but at the very least I'm not approving and I can say, "Don't blame me, I didn't approve of what they're doing(by either my action or inaction)."
Click to expand...

I haven't missed voting in an election since I turned 21 and voted for Barry Goldwater. But on the national stage it is getting harder and harder to choose a candidate that the two major parties offer us. It becomes a question, do I vote for the lesser of two evils, for the least worst candidate among the two major parties or do I vote for a candidate I truly believe would make the best president even if I know he has no chance of winning.

For 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections, I voted for whom I thought was the best candidate even though he was not running as a Republican or Democrat. My reason was after all, even if I voted for the least worst of the two major party candidates, I would still be left with a bad president.
 
nota bene said:
If you want to make a difference, become active in local politics. You have to stop the rascals before they can get out of town, and this is where you do it. It's also where your vote counts. Check out the percentage of voters in your community who actually vote in local/county/district elections, particularly in non-Presidential years. Even when the issues are important, in my town, it's about 6-10% in good years.
Click to expand...

I can disagree with nothing you say. However the problem stems from the people at the top and thereby the furthest away from the voting public. They are constantly in a state of concentrating more and more power. Then the problem becomes like that of Ron Paul. When you build up your base of support within the rules defined, they simply change the rules.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes, those that only take and give nothing in return.

those that want to use the power of government to prey on others, for their benefit.
Click to expand...

You mean those who would impose their morals on the rest of us by force of law?
 
Perotista said:
I haven't missed voting in an election since I turned 21 and voted for Barry Goldwater. But on the national stage it is getting harder and harder to choose a candidate that the two major parties offer us. It becomes a question, do I vote for the lesser of two evils, for the least worst candidate among the two major parties or do I vote for a candidate I truly believe would make the best president even if I know he has no chance of winning.

For 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections, I voted for whom I thought was the best candidate even though he was not running as a Republican or Democrat. My reason was after all, even if I voted for the least worst of the two major party candidates, I would still be left with a bad president.
Click to expand...

I thought Romney would have made a decent president, and still do. We'll never know now, of course, I still didn't vote for him. Here in Obamastan, aka California, the outcome of this state's presidential election at least was a foregone conclusion, so I voted for the best candidate, Gary Johnson, knowing that it was at best a protest vote.
 
Quik said:
Then you are part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Is everyone who disagrees with your point of view a part of the problem?

It seems to me that overspending in Washington is a large part of the problem, and that someone with real world business experience and a track record of bipartisanship would have been able to solve at least some of the problems.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I thought Romney would have made a decent president, and still do. We'll never know now, of course, I still didn't vote for him. Here in Obamastan, aka California, the outcome of this state's presidential election at least was a foregone conclusion, so I voted for the best candidate, Gary Johnson, knowing that it was at best a protest vote.
Click to expand...

Obamastan, now that gave me a chuckle. I too voted for Gary Johnson, but not as a protest vote, as a vote for whom I thought would make the best president. Romney won Georgia, but it was closer than it should have been here. A lot of Republicans really didn't trust Romney and when they voted, there wasn't the enthusiasm I seen from them in the past.
 
Yes, but then you have to remember that he is a liar and a cheat. He's flipped flopped so many times that there really is no "real Mitt." And we saw what he did to Ron Paul throughout the primary process and the RNC, I'd hate to see what happens when he had any kind of real power.

My fear is that with Romney we'd actually probably have the vaunted gun control legislation because the political tides would have shifted, Romney would have convinced all the RINOs/CINOs to jump on board especially after Newtown, and the left especially would have been galvanized had Romney won.

I also think we might be at war in Syria right now if Romney won, possibly Iran. Who knows what he would have done to Rand Paul...
 
Just because it's you, I'll go off topic.
The bottom 16 teams in the NFL with the top 16 picks will do a far
worse job with their picks than the best 16 teams with the lower 16 picks.
Since you know those sinful vegas juices still flow in me, I'll bet you pride again on this term's Senators.
You're just not seeing the light on Landrieu,
especially when you compare her to their other Senator, Vitter.

Perotista said:
Obamastan, now that gave me a chuckle. I too voted for Gary Johnson, but not as a protest vote, as a vote for whom I thought would make the best president. Romney won Georgia, but it was closer than it should have been here. A lot of Republicans really didn't trust Romney and when they voted, there wasn't the enthusiasm I seen from them in the past.
Click to expand...
 
Quik said:
Yes, but then you have to remember that he is a liar and a cheat. He's flipped flopped so many times that there really is no "real Mitt." And we saw what he did to Ron Paul throughout the primary process and the RNC, I'd hate to see what happens when he had any kind of real power.

My fear is that with Romney we'd actually probably have the vaunted gun control legislation because the political tides would have shifted, Romney would have convinced all the RINOs/CINOs to jump on board especially after Newtown, and the left especially would have been galvanized had Romney won.

I also think we might be at war in Syria right now if Romney won, possibly Iran. Who knows what he would have done to Rand Paul...
Click to expand...

I don't think so.
Yes, he did change his position on a lot of issues. He had to come across as a "real" conservative in order to get the nomination, but then was able to run as who he was in the general. If he hadn't tried to lean way over to the right, the stupid Republicans might have nominated Perry or Cain, or one of the other nutters who had no chance at all of winning the general election.

I don't base my opinions of candidates on what they say in the heat of the campaign nearly as much as on what those candidates have done in the past.

Of course, all that is academic now. I don't ever expect him to run again.

Gary Johnson would have been the right choice, but then, he had no chance of winning ever.
 
NIMBY said:
Just because it's you, I'll go off topic.
The bottom 16 teams in the NFL with the top 16 picks will do a far
worse job with their picks than the best 16 teams with the lower 16 picks.
Since you know those sinful vegas juices still flow in me, I'll bet you pride again on this term's Senators.
You're just not seeing the light on Landrieu,
especially when you compare her to their other Senator, Vitter.
Click to expand...

Not seeing the light this far out on the senate is no surprise. On Landrieu it all depends whom the Republicans nominate. McCaskill had no business in winning in Missouri, she only have a 39% favorable rating and was easy pickings until the republican nominate Akin who ended up with only 31% favorable rating. So everything depends on whom get nominated. LA is not ND or MT or even IN where the Dems won last year. I do think she is in trouble if the GOP nominate a decent candidate and stays away from the Aikens and Moudocks, the Angles and O'Donnells.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You mean those who would impose their morals on the rest of us by force of law?
Click to expand...



well what I was getting at is those who paid no income taxes, and receive from government and then vote take more from those who produce and demonize those same people.

if we get into morals, social conservatives want to use government to make people moral.

but progressive /liberals want to use discrimination laws to force people to be moral........discrimination laws are morality laws.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well what I was getting at is those who paid no income taxes, and receive from government and then vote take more from those who produce and demonize those same people.

if we get into morals, social conservatives want to use government to make people moral.

but progressive /liberals want to use discrimination laws to force people to be moral........discrimination laws are morality laws.
Click to expand...

Correct, so both sides want to use the law to impose their morality on the rest of us. The purpose of government, however, is not to try to make people "moral", but to protect our god given rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom