Poll: Please do not vote

[mitsoxfan]

in the end not voting is just irresponsible.

I daresay voting without knowing what you are voting for is more so.

Hence the situation we're in now.

 

[Saskwach]

Thanks, werepossum, for that explanation.

Now, all I have to say is: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE AMERICANS?! What a crazily convoluted system of governance! At least in Australia, we can explain to other people how our system works without writing over nine thousand words.

Ours may be simpler, I don't know, but I know something it fails to do is separation of powers. The executive is right in the lower house telling his party what to vote for. That isn't too optimal.

 

[H0ncho]

I would like to ask what people hope to gain from NOT voting.

I am hoping to remove the uninformed people from the voting pool.

Not voting is in many ways the same thing as not speaking up.

Precisely.
I thought the concensus on this forum was that it was so good(relative to other gaming forums) because all the console vs PC people and all the "first!"(on the yahtzee videos) people won't participate... Because some people won't add anything to the discussion.

Again, this does not mean that non-voters are bad people. There is nothing wrong with understanding ones limitations; everyone can't be political scientists.

 

[Nugoo]

I saw an article like this thread on Slashdot a couple of months ago, and the advice there seemed pretty sound to me. If you're politically conscious enough to recognise that an uninformed vote can be counter-productive, you're politically conscious enough to inform yourself. If you feel the entire system is bad, then become a political activist. I guarantee that things don't get better on their own.

EDIT: Wow, that took 19 minutes to write? Anyway, I agree completely with j-e-f-f-e-r-s. Politics is completely ignored in school (I'm Canadian), and introducing kids to it as they grow up would probably help a whole lot.

 

[werepossum]

I tend to agree with j-e-f-f-e-r-s. Even the least-informed can form positions, at least as basic as "I want the government to take as little of the money I earn as possible; each person is entitled to the fruits of his own labors, and the government should take only a portion for essential public services" or "I want the government to take money earned by others and give it to me; a disparity in wealth hurts a society and is unfair." Certainly you can argue such simplistic concepts don't make for the best results for the country as a whole, but any group in control of who is eligible for voting will make that determination based on their own self-interests. And don't forget that highly educated, knowledgeable people argue those same two simplistic concepts every day in politics. Even if the prospective voter holds such simplistic political views as those I mentioned, we still don't have determination of which theory is correct. I could easily make a cogent argument for either.

There were reasons originally to limit voting to rich white landowners, and you can argue they did an excellent job for the most part for the country as a whole - but they ran the country for the benefit of rich white landowners. If you were a poor black sharecropper (or slave) during the same period of time, I'm guessing you'd prefer a say in how the country is governed to a larger increase in GDP. Past the first generation, a group in power will always govern in its own perceived best interests. Similarly, I believe that any attempt to limit the number of people enfranchised will always be twisted to the benefit of those in charge.

(Sorry for the spelling, I'm typing on my new computer and I don't yet have anything with spell-check loaded.)

 

[Easykill]

This relates to the Canadian election too, I believe.

 

[Larenxis]

Woah, thread necromancy! Still can't vote, still want to, and still no option for that.

 

[Saskwach]

Woah, thread necromancy! Still can't vote, still want to, and still no option for that.

Ah, Larenxis. I'd feel sorry for you if Schadenfreude weren't my middle name.
But damn, I'd totally forgotten about this thread. You're playing a dangerous game, Easykill.
Having returned to this topic I've formed another rebuttal ti H0ncho's thesis: voters are being asked to choose between two broad-brush options, not to draft up law. There's a cetain level of political awareness most people have, which I think it sufficient to choose the lesser of two evils.

 

[Larenxis]

Alas, my only reprieve is bringing in votes for my candidate. But it's not at all the same as putting your little piece of paper into the ballot box. I thought it was, and then I got a chance to vote (within a municipal party) and my eyes were opened to the ecstasy that is voting as a tactile experience.

 

[ace_of_something]

in answer to the early donkey elephant question... the irony is it was back when the two parties were reversed in their conservative/liberal sides.

http://www.c-span.org/questions/week174.htm

 

[Vortigar]

I always vote, trying to go for some kind of moral highground while other people decide what's going to happen is not something I'd consider.

And because Warren Ellis is always right (warning, pretty offensive):

Spoiler

 

[corporate_gamer]

I don't believe people should vote unless they actually have looked into the politicians stances. however, i also believe the australian system is the best. Where everyone has to vote by law but you can put down abstain as your voting option. (this may be entirely incorrect view of the aussie political system as it was gathered from a bloke in a pub)

 

[Lord Krunk]

Mandatory over here, but I'm a minor.

At least, for another 2 months.

But I can't vote until I'm 18, so 2 years and 2 months.

 

[TOGSolid]

The US Electoral College system guarantees that a US citizen's vote isn't worth a god damn thing. You'd think in this day and age we'd have dumped that system, however it's too ripe for abuse by the candidates.

I vote Cthulhu every election. No candidate has stepped up since I became old enough to vote that I believe would actually do a good job running this country.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Voting for the most part is easy just pick the ones that benefit you

 

[Ultrajoe]

Wow, this a blast from the past!

I seem oddly eloquent in this thread, beyond my normal scope.

Thats what trying not to offend will do, i had to be careful to question america without criticizing it.

And i am still surprised that anyone thinks kangaroos were ever endangered.

 

[Eiseman]

Voting for the most part is easy just pick the ones that benefit you

I disagree. I think it would be better to vote in a way that benefits the country. You and your country don't always have the same needs or interests, and ultimately your vote is a civic duty, not a chance to reel in some perks or benefits.

Isn't that what patriotism is all about? Looking past your own beliefs/interests/comforts in favor of what's best for the country?

 

[videonerd250]

This is because there exists GOOD policies and there exists BAD policies.

That's not always true. Most of the time it's policies you agree with and BELIEVE ar good, or those you don't agree with and BELIEVE are bad. You'd have to almost be completely impartial to decide which policy is "good" or "bad" without hindsight (which I believe is impossible).

 

[Digitalpotato]

I see a lot of people who vote in local elections such as state constitution amendments but not voting for the president for one common reason:

"Your vote does not count."

A voting is really a statement. It's really the Electoral college that determines who becomes the president - heck i've been berated since apparently I, who was twelve years old in 2000, apparently voted George W bush in when Al Gore won the popular vote.

it's just a statement - I'm likely to be voting for a third-party candidate simply because of all the freaking Political Spam and how I can't go one day without hearing a McCain, Obama, or Palin smear ad. (if I had my way, you'd have to make a public appearance and apologize to the person for what the ad said or risk being dropped from the campaign.) If the Electoral votes vote for Obama and I voted for McCain, all the votes we cast for Obama are canceled anyways - so you voted for one of the two people whose votes DID count but since you didn't vote along with the majority, your vote doesn't count. Gotta love "The system".

 

[goodman528]

I agree with not voting. 99.999% of us has absolutely no idea about running the country, whether it be economy, education, healthcare, legal system or defense and foreign policy. So why is it a good idea for us to choose these policies? You wouldn't design a car by gathering a bunch of 5 year olds then presenting them with different components and colourful ads, then choosing the components based on their vote. So why would we vote in elections?

There is massive support in China for the arguement that: "We should not have democracy in this country, because people are simply too stupid to vote responsibly." Votes can be bought and sold just like any product, and just as salesmen lie about their products, politians lie about their policies.