You should vote, so that your voice is heard in government and so that the government represents the interests of people like you. However, in the U.S. among 200 million other voters, our votes really don't mean squat.

I don't want to vote, its my choice...I don't want to be involved in politics, for me this is freedom.

You should vote, so that your voice is heard in government and so that the government represents the interests of people like you. However, in the U.S. among 200 million other voters, our votes really don't mean squat.
Yep. I refuse to vote until they get rid of that stupid ass electoral college, and actually stop relying on a scant few states(IA, NY, FL) for a candidate to win to win the whole thing.

If you do not believe in the currect state of your democracy, then fuck it, don't vote.

If you do not believe in the currect state of your democracy, then fuck it, don't vote.

I believe 100% in my government, I just have no belief or faith in the jackasses that are running it right now.

Our voices are but mere whispers compared to the lobbyists that work for

large companies which influence the politicians with a great big

roar....MONEY.

I believe 100% in my government, I just have no belief or faith in the jackasses that are running it right now.

Then you should definitely vote.

I don't here in Canada, becasue i'd honestly rather see the whole shitworks go down in flames. I will be the first one to try and rebuild.

Well, there will always be swing vote states. But really. Who cares? My vote doesn't matter in a country with 200 million voters. With so many voters, how could it be any other way? Imagine voting in China or India with over a billion other voters.

My vote doesn't matter in a country with 200 million voters.

It appears this way at first glance, yes.

But when a hundred million voters or more think the way you do - then this makes all the difference.

What control do I have over the minds of other voters? If I go to the polls, so will they through my telepathy?

What control do I have over the minds of other voters? If I go to the polls, so will they through my telepathy?

No, silly.

I am pointing out the combined effect of many people thinking that their vote doesn't really count.
It can amount to enormous differences.

So, by my voting I will change that combined effect? I think not.

I like how we have the option to vote. I vote, and the great majority of people I know who dont vote are so uniformed about the issues that I am glad they dont vote. I also believe however, that if you bitch about your government but do nothing about it you just need to shut the hell up.

But is voting really doing anything about it? Such a anemic endeavor is hardly worthy of being considered "doing something" about it.

It is if enough people vote. Protest and getting active in the community helps as well.

How can you deciding to vote make other people vote?

It cant, the decision is up to them in the end.

So, what's the point of your messly little vote - you puny pol!

Then are you suggesting that no person should vote?

Yes. Voting is a worthless endeavor - unless it is a moral duty.

Cool, just keep thinking that and not voting the worlds better off that way.

You are seriously deluded if you think my refusal to vote will make the world better off.

I dont think, I know

Just eat your Tubby Toast like a good little goober.

I'd much rather eat your "tubby toast" ;)

I thought the yellow teletubby wasn't gay?

....What I where did that come from? Are you just projecting again? I told you I'm not interested why

Oh, I'm sorry. And by eating my "tubby toast" - what exactly were you talking about?

I was talking about effing tubby toast...duh

Sure you were. . . .

I like how we have the option to vote. I vote, and the great majority of people I know who dont vote are so uniformed about the issues that I am glad they dont vote. I also believe however, that if you bitch about your government but do nothing about it you just need to shut the hell up.
To me, the moral duty is if you're going to vote, be informed. It's far better to not vote at all then to go in and vote randomly.

In the primaries last year I researched the issues and selected the best candidates for city council. Guess who won the primary. The top three names. They were placed there due to alphabetical order.

That really pissed me off. There were like 12 people running for the three slots, and the top three won!

If you're going to vote, put some time in to be informed, don't just vote for the guy who's name is on top!

Yes, I would prefer that voters know the issues and the candidates instead of just picking a name.

I love men


:eek:

Just goes to prove that your vote meant nothing.

Just goes to prove that your vote meant nothing.

Man you are a huge waste of my time.:rolleyes:

Now, you're making up fake quotes. That's the sign of a true evil genius. You should rally with Oprah.

YES goddammit, it is a moral duty.

If you think the state of the democratic process is shit, register that by fucking up your vote so it doesn't count.

You should vote, so that your voice is heard in government and so that the government represents the interests of people like you. However, in the U.S. among 200 million other voters, our votes really don't mean squat.

In Australia right now there is still an argument going on over one particular parliamentary seat, where on the latest count the sitting member will be decided by a margin of 5 votes, out of a total of about 80,000 cast in that electorate.

In other words, if just six people said "It doesn't matter who I vote for, so I'll vote informal, or not vote at all, or donkey vote" the result might well have been different.

20 voters or 200 million voters - the winner is still decided by the majority, and all votes count.

In other words, if just six people said "It doesn't matter who I vote for, so I'll vote informal, or not vote at all, or donkey vote" the result might well have been different.

There was a time, a few years ago, when a Seattle monorail issue was on the ballot. Two days after the election, the issue had not yet been decided. At the end of business that day, the difference was three votes. While that margin would not hold, it was a curious moment sitting around and smoking a bowl; we had, between one "no" vote and two non-voters, the entire difference in that election sitting in one room.

Go down to a pub in that jurisdiction right now, and you can probably find the whole difference in the election waiting on the next round.

There was a time, a few years ago, when a Seattle monorail issue was on the ballot. Two days after the election, the issue had not yet been decided. At the end of business that day, the difference was three votes. While that margin would not hold, it was a curious moment sitting around and smoking a bowl; we had, between one "no" vote and two non-voters, the entire difference in that election sitting in one room.

Go down to a pub in that jurisdiction right now, and you can probably find the whole difference in the election waiting on the next round.
That's the only kind of situation where we have democracy those days. But when it comes to elections.... well it's worthless. First of all, the person who you elect might not keep their promise. Second, you have to choose between 2 people (you call that a choice?). Finally, you don't really have a say- lobbysts who work for large corporation have a say.

People who choose not to vote should have the good grace not to inflict their worthless opinions upon the rest of us in internet forums, bars, or any public place.

So, by my voting I will change that combined effect? I think not.

What is so hard to understand about combined effect?

If one person throws away an empty plastic bottle in the park, it barely makes any difference.

If a thousand people each throw away an empty plastic bottle in a park, there will be a heap of empty plastic bottles. That will definitely make a difference.


If a lot of people think that voting is of no use, and thus do not vote, then the combined effect of all those people not voting will make a difference.

Yes, but how is my single decision to vote or not to vote going to affect the conglomerate? You are simply making the argument, "well, if everyone thought that way [insert argument here]." This argument has little appeal to the individual making the decision, as the individual has no control over what everyone else does.

Yes, but how is my single decision to vote or not to vote going to affect the conglomerate? You are simply making the argument, "well, if everyone thought that way [insert argument here]." This argument has little appeal to the individual making the decision, as the individual has no control over what everyone else does.

The individual needn't have any control over what someone else does, and I am not suggesting that the individual does have such control.

I'm saying that if a million people think "There's no point in voting, so I won't vote", this results in a million people not voting.

One person not voting is different than a million people not voting.

A million people not voting is made up of each one of these million people not voting.

So, why should I care about the 999,999 others? I still don't affect them.

One - If you still can't see how a hundred million people doing something or refraining from it makes a difference, then I'm afraid don't know what to say anymore.

Two - When many people think "it's not worth voting", this atittude spreads throughout society, and people are then less likely to vote.
The attitude "it's not worth voting" is held by each such individual. You being such an individual, and many other people.

Three - Why should you care about others? Because you do affect them, even if in a minor way.

You are failing to see the difference between motivating the individual and motivating the group. As an individual, your arguments about group affects are virtually meaningless to me, as my vote is inconsequential among millions of voters. Now, if I were part of a specific group attempting to wring some political influence from the group's collective voting power, then I can see your point. However, most voters aren't in such groups. And, the two groups of Republicans and Democrats are too large for any one individual to believe voting for either of those groups really makes any difference.

my vote is inconsequential among millions of voters.

I would again suggest you look at the issue from the perspective that a million people or more would do the same thing as you. What would be the result then? Would your vote (and the votes of that million other people or more) matter?

The important thing here -and this is where we seem to be at an impasse- is the fact of how many people vote.

From this perspective, it should be clear what the consequences of not voting are, and thus it should also be clear that voting is a moral duty.

If the roughly 50% of the population who do not currently vote were all to turn up the polling stations to register a protest vote, I can gauruntee you the politics of our country would change.
If you choose to withold action as an individual you will endure the consequences as an individual and as a member of the group (society) to which you, no matter how reluctantly, belong.
It is your choice, but it seems an especially dumb one to me. (This is addressed to Why?., not to Greenberg. Probably obvious, but you can't tell with these non-voters.)

I bet the results would be the same - even if every eligible voter voted. Don't the pre-election polls of eligible voters give you a fairly good idea of who is going to win? It wouldn't matter if all the eligible voters showed up at the polls, because the pre-election polls have already taken them into account and so have the politicians. Only in very close elections would it make any difference.

I believe voting is a moral duty. In fact, I think the law should require you to vote. This moral duty is the only reason I actually get my fat ass out the door and down to the polling booth. My brain tells me its meaningless, but my heart tells me to do it.

That's the only kind of situation where we have democracy those days. In the US, at least, all polls show us to be closely divided. We're pretty much a 50/50 nation right now. Any election can be decided by turnout. Get people like you to show up, and you can decide an election. Consider the 2000 election. Millions of votes cast, and it was decided by about 500 votes! One guy canvasing his town could have rounded up 500 votes!

In the US, at least, all polls show us to be closely divided. We're pretty much a 50/50 nation right now. Any election can be decided by turnout. Get people like you to show up, and you can decide an election. Consider the 2000 election. Millions of votes cast, and it was decided by about 500 votes! One guy canvasing his town could have rounded up 500 votes!
You didn't understand what I said. There's not enough diversity to choose from. If you don't agree with X and you don't agree with Y, you have nothing to choose from. You either choose the one that is least far away or you don't vote at all. That's the problem. Besides, what good it is to have a "divided nation".

Good point. Not enough diversity. Only two parties both beholden to special interest money, and little to no chance of anyone without the ability to please the party to become President.

People should not be forced to vote.

Only people with some understanding and interest in the parties and outcome should vote.

Everyone should be ALLOWED to vote, although if I was in charge it would only be the educated middle class, therefore eliminating corruption and coersion of voters whether overt or otherwise.

*does stupid dance*

People are forced to go to jury duty. Why not be forced to vote? It's a civil duty. Sure, there are lots of uninformed voters, but human dignity requires them to have a say.

Someone once said, "stupid people are those who disagree with me."

Voting is mandatory in some countries, Brazil is one off the top of my head.

People who can't be bothered will just tick a random box. Then there are those who just vote for the one who gives out t-shirts and looks the nicest. Stupid crap like that. The truth is that most of the population are either too stupid to understand, or are uninterested. That goes for EVERY country.

That is why voting should not be required.

I bet the results would be the same - even if every eligible voter voted. Don't the pre-election polls of eligible voters give you a fairly good idea of who is going to win? It wouldn't matter if all the eligible voters showed up at the polls, because the pre-election polls have already taken them into account and so have the politicians.

This is different, though, than just the question of whether voting is a moral duty or not.

Now you're talking about voting in a particular situation where the votes are projected to be divided almost evenly. This, however, is a matter of accepting that this simply is the state of the country. With this in mind, it should be even more of an imperative to vote, as even a small number of votes can change the election results.


As for there not being enough diversity and therefore some people refusing to vote:
In some countries, there is a minimum number of voters defined that must vote in the election, if the election is to be valid. If not enough voters vote, that election is nullified, and repeated.
But I'm not sure what this really solves.

You didn't understand what I said. There's not enough diversity to choose from. If you don't agree with X and you don't agree with Y, you have nothing to choose from. You either choose the one that is least far away or you don't vote at all. That's the problem.

It seems that life on Earth isn't about choosing between the good and the bad, but about choosing between the greater evil and the lesser evil.

Two parties scrapping to get every last voter are going to be more and more alike, as they mold themselves to fight for the same voters. Consequently, you end up with the Republicans and Democrats who are barely different. Again, does it really matter who I vote for?

Two parties scrapping to get every last voter are going to be more and more alike, as they mold themselves to fight for the same voters. Consequently, you end up with the Republicans and Democrats who are barely different. Again, does it really matter who I vote for?

In that particular scheme - probably no. The above isn't a situation reflecting a democratic political system anyway.

But if you would be the citizen of a country where there is about a dozen political parties competing, then the importance of voting would be far more obvious.

True, but not in the U.S. where I live. So, my vote is still meaningless.

Voting is mandatory in some countries, Brazil is one off the top of my head.

Australia has nominal compulsory voting.

But think about what this means for a moment. It's not actually compulsory voting, but compulsory turning up to a polling booth on election day. Once you're in the booth you can write "I hate politics" on your ballot paper if you like, and your "vote" won't count.

What compulsory voting does is that it means citizens can't just ignore the political process. And I'd argue that this is actually a good thing for a democracy.

True, but not in the U.S. where I live. So, my vote is still meaningless.

In that case, this is a problem concerning the state of the country, not a problem of voting as such.

In a non-democratic political system, voting is a farce.