Do you vote?

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Sir, you are so ill informed about the nature of the welfare state, the problems of lopsided economies and their social effects, what socialism is, and the problems affecting Greece (I mean more than just reading a newspaper once in a while), that it is difficult to know where to begin correcting the flaws in your knowledge and logic.

Typical Americans eh? Now I will prepare for a deluge of abuse.

Deluge of abuse? Nope, I'm a very nice person if your were to ever meet me. I'm talking about how Obama wants to increase spending when it can't be sustained. I'm not privy to British politics. My problem is just with Obama's increased spending during a recession while America is in deep debt. A country can keep on affording to spend on welfare but that doesn't fix the problem. Welfare is a short term solution for someone without the means to care for themselves. Long term solutions should be a nations goal rather than paying for everything.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

What's keeping you from voting Lib Dem? We've already covered earlier in the thread how you don't vote for a party in the UK, you vote for your MP, so it depends where you live for the Lib Dems to have a chance of 'winning'. If everyone who could elect a Lib Dem MP did so there'd probably be over 100 of them.

Right and in either of the places in which I am/can register to vote, the Lib Dem representative still has no realistic chance of winning, so it's still a two horse race. Barring the fact that a vote for them would utlimately be fruitless, I find my outlook alings much closer to Labour's general policies anyway. And really? If there were a ever a worse time to vote Lib Dem when they're currently in bed with the Tory's I fail to see it. The people who voted tactically have seen it all go horribly wrong; Clegg sold his voters out for a few scraps of power and most of his cabinet followed suit. Rest assured, even if I could vote Lib Dem, I wouldn't. Though in the grand scheme of things it's not like my vote counts for much anyway, whether it be lesser of two or three evils.

 

[Duruznik]

I live in Israel, and I haven't voted yet because I haven't had a chance since i turned 18 last year. But come next elections, you can bet your sweet ass I'll vote. The government's down the shitter, and I'm not gonna just sit by and fume silently, fuck no.

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

I don't believe welfare states are sustainable and still America's isn't like the ones in Europe.

If welfare states are unsustainable why does the UK have a better credit rating than the US and a lower debt-to-GDP ratio? Yes, the US 'welfare system' isn't like those in Europe, it's much worse and costs a fraction of the amount. US spending is so high because of the military. Having the world's most kick-ass, technologically advanced military has to come from somewhere my friend.

Spending more and more doesn't make sense with an anti-business president and trillions in debt. That's my main problem with Obama.

What does that sentence even mean? How is Obama anti-business? You never explained that original point of yours. There is a great deal of evidence that increasing government spending on the right things actually stimulates an economy. I assume you've heard of FDR's New Deal, right? That helped you guys go into, and come out of, WW2 pretty sweetly.

Far left may be more appropriate than socialist.

Far left on what? Economics, society, the street?

Under Obama's presidency more people are using food stamps than ever and people who don't need them have them. Pointless spending is what I hate the most. Food stamps are also easier than ever to get.

So you're going to blame that on the current guy, not the president before him who spent 8 years and more money than you had on two wars, one of which is widely recognised as illegal by the rest of the world.

I concede to your logic. I don't have all the information at hand to explain my points properly at the moment. You win. I'm going to go re-educate on myself on the Obama presidency. Hope this isn't coming off as sarcastic.

 

[RuralGamer]

Who would I vote for? There are no candidates in our elections, just a load of narcissistic liars.

 

[razer17]

By not voting they are making a statement that they don't identify with any of the candidates, they don't see themselves being represented. That's a pretty big deal in a "representative democracy" I think they are doing the right thing by not voting.

So I think you're fundamentally wrong to say not voting means you're satisfied with the way things are.

You vote for the party that best represents you. Unless you start your own party your not going to fully identify with any other party, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't vote.

In fact, if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain about pretty much anything. I wonder how many people complaining about SOPA and PIPA actually voted last election (of those that could vote).

Edit - I guess it seems pretty obvious, but yes, I do vote. I may believe no part is perfect, but I vote for the best of a bad bunch, which is better than nothing.

 

[Gerishnakov]

Deluge of abuse? Nope, I'm a very nice person if your were to ever meet me. I'm talking about how Obama wants to increase spending when it can't be sustained. I'm not privy to British politics. My problem is just with Obama's increased spending during a recession while America is in deep debt. A country can keep on affording to spend on welfare but that doesn't fix the problem. Welfare is a short term solution for someone without the means to care for themselves. Long term solutions should be a nations goal rather than paying for everything.

It's all good natured, this is The Escapist after all, not Congress or the House of Commons!

I'm afraid welfare just simply isn't a short term solution for many people, such as the disabled. I can certainly see where you're coming from if we're talking about the merely unemployed. In this day and age I believe many people have simply lost the aptitude and attitude necessary for honest work. Why that has come about is a topic for another thread.

This is beside the point with Obama though. What he's tried to do with 'Obamacare' is commendable, moving towards free healthcare for all is the mark of a civilised nation, just as the situation is with education, policing, or the military. However, you're right. Spending on things such as that is not going to improve the economy. Obama should be spending on great infrastructure improvements across the US, things only the federal government can do.

 

[StormShaun]

Almost 18 here in Australia, so soon, very soon.

Then everyone shall fear MY MIGHTY PEN SKILLS!

Bwahahahahaha...I'll be doing it in November, so you don't have to fear until then.

 

[Gerishnakov]

I concede to your logic. I don't have all the information at hand to explain my points properly at the moment. You win. I'm going to go re-educate on myself on the Obama presidency. Hope this isn't coming off as sarcastic.

This was never a competition buddy, merely a debate. If you're being sincere about your intentions then good for you, anyone willing to further educate themselves deserves merit, a principle I hold myself to as well.

 

[Kaytastrophe]

I don't know how many people will read this but let me offer those of you who don't want to vote because you don't like any of the candidates a suggestion. Vote but abstain (or spoil your ballet). When the government sees that you didn't vote they see you as just being lazy or indifferent and as such they are not going to try and get you to vote for them because you're seen as lazy and an absentee voter. You never made your voice heard you gave up your say. However if you spoil your ballet you clearly put the effort into researching candidates and still went to vote but voted for no one because you didn't like any of the candidates. How legitimate would it look if lets say 100% of the nation voted in an election and the winning party got 30% of the total votes, opposition 20% and 50% spoiled or abstained. By spoiling instead not voting your showing an interest in politics and exercising your vote however none of the candidates appealed to you. That's just my opinion.

This is on the second page of the thread though...and no one reads the second page

I do. and in the US, you don't need to spoil the ballet, you can write in a nonsense vote. Mickey mouse is a popular protest vote. Also, 30 percent of american voters have no physical ballet to spoil. 30% of US votes are counted by electronic machines with no paper record to spoil. 60% are counted by electronic voting machines.

I vote because I might as well do something, and leaving it to the same idiots over and over again seem to not be doing us any good.

"crazyness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" can't disagree, voting is never a waste of time. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

By not voting they are making a statement that they don't identify with any of the candidates, they don't see themselves being represented. That's a pretty big deal in a "representative democracy" I think they are doing the right thing by not voting.

So I think you're fundamentally wrong to say not voting means you're satisfied with the way things are.

Then why remain silent if you aren't? If you sit around waiting for the perfect candidate things will never change. The lesser of two evils is better than just sitting back and letting the current situation run it's course.

Not really. I would argue not only that both are equally equal, but further: if you have the choice between getting murdered or getting raped, what do you choose? I choose to run away or fight back. There are other options. 3rd party. Write in. And they aren't pipe dreams anymore. You don't need the deep pockets of a political party to win an election anymore, thanks to the internet you could run a decent campaign for free. Youtube and facebook is more than enough to reach the masses, and both are free. The world is changing, we need to shed our assumptions about politics that were made during an era without the internet. The internet has changed everything, especially politics.

Awe you see, I live in Canada where we still use tradition paper ballets. Does the American machine not allow an abstain option or anything? If it forces you to choose between the two candidates and only the two candidates that doesn't seem truly democratic.

 

[Broady Brio]

UK - Not yet. I've just turned 18. Though I have a feeling that I will end up not voting for anyone anyway.

 

[Orcboyphil]

I live in the UK and I also vote. I didn't vote in the 2001 election (my first eligible one) because of the cost. I had just moved to another part of the country and because of the archaic way the UK electoral registry works I would have had to travel a 100+ miles and waste about £40 to vote. That pissed me off, oh and I was also working that day. All the others I have voted in, even the local elections whose turn out are so low they make the American system seem like a vabriant democracy.

 

[Panorama]

This seems appropriate to many of the responses I've seen thus far.

Superb! im going to steal this next time i get into one of these discussions and pretending in found this. thank you

 

[agent_orange420]

UK - yep i vote. I think that it should be compulsory for people to vote, but only if there is a "non of the above" option, The turn out here for voting is terrible.

Also think that MP's should have their wages set (at minimum wage lol!) then get bonus based on how much they win their constituancy by. Would then hopefuly mean poeple getting into politics becuase they want to make a difference, rather than as a good career option and a tax dodge.

 

[Hungry Donner]

I vote, and I research all of the candidates before voting as well.

 

[Sandytimeman]

I do vote, though only started recently. Lately I felt like, things I was a part of made a difference. That in numbers we the people could override the corruption and internal buddy deals of Washington and Business Interests. We as a group can help tear those things apart.

How?

By voting, or rather the threat of not voting for someone currently in office. If you call someone and say, hey I'm a registered voter..I'm not going to vote for you because of your stance on X. Well if enough people do that they are literally forced to change their stance, not because that's what a representative is supposed to do when the people he is representing want him to, but because he needs a job and doesn't want to lose it.

 

[hawkeye52]

They really should have a box in the voting polls which says none of these candidates represent my opinion. Although not helping the actual election with the votes it would be powerful evidence which shows that there are a lot of people who are disenfranchised with the current voting system and maybe get parties to think more about their core policies

 

[peruvianskys]

Read this essay entitled "Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler" by Wendy McElroy.

So, returning to the question of voting for Hitler: purely for the sake of argument, I'll grant the possibility that I could morally cast a ballot. Yet even then, I would still refuse to vote against him. Why? Because the essential problem is not Hitler, but the institutional framework that allows a Hitler to grasp a monopoly on power. Without the state to back him up and an election to give him legitimized power, Hitler would have been, at most, the leader of some ragged thugs who mugged people in back alleys. Voting for or against Hitler would only strengthen the institutional framework that produced him - a framework that would produce another of his ilk in two seconds.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/085b.html

American politics are so institutionally flawed that voting for one traditional party candidate or the other does more harm than good by strengthening the inherently flawed electoral system. I will not vote until I feel as though my ballot will achieve anything except more broken party politics. The choice right now is neo-conservative #1 or neo-conservative #2 and it's been that way since maybe 1918. We haven't had a president who has promised to do anything except declare war and pillage the citizenry since. To give legitimacy to that disgusting machine through voting is disgusting.

 

[Creator002]

Yes, because in Australia it's required by law. During the last election, over-18 year olds risked a $200+ fine for not enrolling. I didn't enrol and didn't get any fine, but I then enrolled a few weeks later. Still have yet to wait for another election for my first voting experience.

 

[Yopaz]

I vote, but I don't really see the point after my political party got crushed in the last election with 3.9% of the votes. That is 0.1% less than what they need to have any power at all. However I will vote and hope that they get at least 4% this year.