To vote or not to vote

[LethalWolfe]

So, I really don't like Bush or Kerry and I'm up in the air about whether or not I should vote at all. If I did vote it would be more like a vote *against* the other guy and not a vote *for* the guy I'm voting for (that make sense?). That idea really doesn't thrill me too much. Of course neither does the prospect of not voting. I think I was one of the few people in my peer group that was really excited about reaching voting age.

Thoughts?

Also, I guess I'm just bummed about the current state of politics in America and this is just a mild way for me to vent.


Lethal

[yellow]

I vote for vote.

Too many Americans don't vote. Apathy sucks.

[Sayhey]

Lethal,

I could go on for pages on why it is important to vote Bush out and Kerry in on Nov. 2nd, but I'll skip it unless you specifically ask for such a response. What I will say is that this election is more than Kerry vs. Bush. There are many, many other issues and candidates that are important in our daily lives. If you can't decide by November on a candidate for President - leave it blank - and vote the rest of the ballot.

[emw]

Well, I guess you have two choices:

1) Decide that you really don't like either candidate and don't really care who wins, so don't vote and accept the winner without regrets that you didn't vote. Which also means you really don't have the right to complain about who gets into office.

2) Realize that you have a limited number of candidates (Bush, Nader, Kerry, probably some other independents based on state) and that one of those candidates will become president whether you like it or not. Sure, you may not love any of them, and likely will disagree with all of them at some point, but in the end you can likely point to one and say "he's better than any other choice, and I sure don't want those other guys pulling the strings." So, yes, you may in a way be voting "against" somebody with your choice, but you're really voting for the guy you think in the end is better than the others.

Yes, there's the third choice - vote for somebody you know won't win, just because you want to say you voted, but in the end, that's the same as (or worse than) not voting, IMHO.

[emw]

There are many, many other issues and candidates that are important in our daily lives..

Great point!

[skunk]

You don't have to vote for either of them, but you definitely should vote. If people only voted for candidates they thought would win, there would not be much left of democracy. As a citizen - soon perhaps to be a subject - of the US, you have the perhaps onerous and perhaps unwelcome opportunity - and DUTY - to express YOUR view of which way things should go, not only for you and your country, but for others as well. Considering the way that America is throwing its weight around in every part of the globe, your administration's actions affect everyone. Get out there and use your small influence at the ballot box, for the sake of us all.

[LeeTom]

Here's a reason to vote:
Some people think that a few Supreme Court Justices may retire in the next four years, leaving it up to the next President to pick a rather significant portion of our highest court.
How do you feel about abortion?
Civil rights?
Banning gay marriage?
The Patriot Act?
The draft?
Trade?

The future of some of these issues may ultimately be decided, indirectly, by the next president. With your state leaning conservative, but not necessarily firmly, your vote can help tip the scale of these issues one way or the other, and that means a lot.

Lee Tom

[3rdpath]

i think if you don't vote you're saying through your actions that democracy, as inherently imperfect as it is, does not work. outside of nature, there is no perfection in this world...no perfect party and certainly no perfect candidates.

i personally am not excited by either of the contenders but i feel that voting for the least destructive of the two is a worthwhile compromise. heck, we even compromise when choosing our spouses...and that's supposed to last well beyond four years....so please vote.

[Leo Hubbard]

So, I really don't like Bush or Kerry and I'm up in the air about whether or not I should vote at all. If I did vote it would be more like a vote *against* the other guy and not a vote *for* the guy I'm voting for (that make sense?). That idea really doesn't thrill me too much. Of course neither does the prospect of not voting. I think I was one of the few people in my peer group that was really excited about reaching voting age.

Thoughts?

Also, I guess I'm just bummed about the current state of politics in America and this is just a mild way for me to vent.


Lethal
Do a write in candidate or vote for Nader. Not voting isn't as big of a statement as voting for someone else in my opinion. I would be tempted to do this myself if I wasn't worried about supreme court judges or terrorists.

[Leo Hubbard]

Lethal,

I could go on for pages on why it is important to vote Bush out and Kerry in on Nov. 2nd, but I'll skip it unless you specifically ask for such a response. What I will say is that this election is more than Kerry vs. Bush. There are many, many other issues and candidates that are important in our daily lives. If you can't decide by November on a candidate for President - leave it blank - and vote the rest of the ballot.
But don't leave a hanging chad.

[LethalWolfe]

Yeah...

I'm gonna vote (my hang-up was just w/the presidential race, I would've voted the rest of the races). I guess I just needed to bleed some apathy and frustration. Thanx guys. :)

And, Leo, no I won't leave anything hanging chads. ;)

If I can't help steer the country in the direction I'd really like it to go at least I can help steer it away from the direction I'd really not like it to go.


Lethal

[Neserk]

If I can't vote FOR someone I at least vote AGAINST someone. I feel I then have the right to bitch and complain :D

[kuyu]

Here's a reason to vote:
Some people think that a few Supreme Court Justices may retire in the next four years, leaving it up to the next President to pick a rather significant portion of our highest court.
How do you feel about abortion?
Civil rights?
Banning gay marriage?
The Patriot Act?
The draft?
Trade?

Lee Tom

Exactly what makes this race critical. I would encourage anyone not thinking of voting to reconsider. While I'm pulling for Bush (this time :rolleyes: ), I realize that it's not about what I want, but what WE want. Go vote or you can't complain. After all, isn't that the fun part?!?

As for Lee Tom's issues, who do I vote for if I'm split down the middle??? My feelings are as follows: I won't but you can, MLK Jr was right, I won't but you can, I'm not a terrorist, bring it on, free all the way.

:confused:

[mischief]

If you don't vote you're a fool. If you vote for Nader you're a bigger fool. If you blindly vote for the status quo you're an ignorant fool.

Don't be a fool. Research the candidates and VOTE FOR ONE!!!

BTW: Research does not include pundit publications. It includes public records like the online-accessable (dot-gov) transcripts of opinions voiced by the candidates on issues they've supported or suppressed.

[patrick0brien]

-Please, dear God, VOTE!!

[3rdpath]

-Please, dear God, VOTE!!

sadly, we now have proof that god does not vote.

[jelloshotsrule]

If you don't vote you're a fool. If you vote for Nader you're a bigger fool. If you blindly vote for the status quo you're an ignorant fool.


that's amazing that in one breath you tell him a vote for nader is foolish and in the next you say that if you blindly follow the status quo you're ignorant and foolish

wow....

emw- i don't think voting for someone who wont' win is bad. it tells the people who could win that not everyone will accept their positions blindly.

[3rdpath]

emw- i don't think voting for someone who wont' win is bad. it tells the people who could win that not everyone will accept their positions blindly.

i think its important to note that to accept someone's position does NOT mean you accept it blindly. seeking a balance based upon the realities of the present situation is not a horrible compromise or a deal with the devil. on the contrary, it is a decision that embraces the facts, like them or not, and hopefully a working concept for better political days in the future.

[mactastic]

If you don't vote you shouldn't complain about the people in power. Just my 2¢.

[jelloshotsrule]

i think its important to note that to accept someone's position does NOT mean you accept it blindly. seeking a balance based upon the realities of the present situation is not a horrible compromise or a deal with the devil. on the contrary, it is a decision that embraces the facts, like them or not, and hopefully a working concept for better political days in the future.

good point. it was still in my head from mischief's post. :)

[patrick0brien]

If you don't vote you shouldn't complain about the people in power. Just my 2¢.

-mactastic

Damn right.

[3rdpath]

good point. it was still in my head from mischief's post. :)

i kinda figured. i know nader's your guy and i respect that. we both have the same political goals-just different ways of getting there. btw, good seeing you and your bro in l.a...apologies for the extremely small window of time to hang.

[SPG]

Cut through the crap. Cut throught the lies. Look at the backgrounds of the candidates. Look at what they really did. Take a look at the stands they take on the issues, who do they help? It is important to figure out what you want to see in the future of this country and who you think will be better at achieving that.
Ask yourself some serious questions. Try not to get too distracted by the BS.
I've asked myself some tough questions about where we are and where we could be.
I've thought about it and I not only do I know who I'm voting for, but I've already registered a lot of people and will continue to do so until the cutoff on October 2nd. I'll keep my choice off this thread since this about whether to vote and not who to vote for...which reminds me, it's more than a "who" to vote for, it's more of a "what kind of future" to vote for.

[mischief]

(snip) it's more than a "who" to vote for, it's more of a "what kind of future" to vote for.

Bingo.

Jello, I have to say that my somewhat hardline rhetoric is more the product of the situation than my beliefs about multiple parties. I wholeheartedly believe that there should be more like five major parties and that there should never be an even number. Either that or Parties should be outlawed.

However I also believe that in the current situation we need to swing things back in the direction of social programs and reform. Since the Dems are both weak on charisma and the strongest party endorsing those beliefs I take the stance that they should be supported out of sheer need to suppress the frighteningly deep-right swung GOP.

Basically, I agree in principal but in practice this really is a matter of chess until the game is less evenly matched and there are indeed more third party Senators and Reps. I feel that the Presidential race is too critical in how it effects National Moralle and identity to go the direction of a third yet. Senators? Cool. Just not an office thats inherently unballanceable and assigns so many long term posts (read: Judges).

[skunk]

A third party has to start somewhere.
You're right, but you have to be REALLY patient: you're looking at a long, slow process.

[Thomas Veil]

You're all worried about nothing.

Ashcroft is gonna suspend the election. ;)







(I wish I could be more confident that I was only joking.)

[mactastic]

Much as I'd love to see a third-party (or a fourth or tenth party) in this country, the efforts of those parties need to be focused on the more local levels. It really would have been a huge moment in politics if the Green Party had won the mayoral race in SF this past year. But even that is too much at this point. Get some local races won and then you can start to focus on mayoral races, gubernatorial races, state reps, etc. Then you start to think nationally. Any third party that doesn't want to be a flash in the pan needs to rely on long term party building, not a celebrity candidacy for high office.

[mischief]

Much as I'd love to see a third-party (or a fourth or tenth party) in this country, the efforts of those parties need to be focused on the more local levels. It really would have been a huge moment in politics if the Green Party had won the mayoral race in SF this past year. But even that is too much at this point. Get some local races won and then you can start to focus on mayoral races, gubernatorial races, state reps, etc. Then you start to think nationally. Any third party that doesn't want to be a flash in the pan needs to rely on long term party building, not a celebrity candidacy for high office.

Bingo. Start with the legislature, locally and work up to executive positions as each political "market" reaches a "third party saturation level" IE: Pick your battles and work the legislatures first. Follow the successes of women and minorities in politics. Did they go for the Executive positions first? No. They got into the legislature where there are more positions to fill and less tension involved in filling them.

In a way shooting for the "glory" positions first dammages credibility that's remarkably hard won in the first place. I'll vote a Green legislator in ahead of an Executive candidate of the same party (and have voted that way). It would help also if the candidates weren't so far to the left (Third party candidates around here really ARE birkenstock-wearing, veganazis).

[MattG]

Get out and vote!

I hear where you're coming from regarding not being thrilled with Bush or Kerry. It seems like there aren't a lot of Kerry "supporters" per se; instead, a lot of people are either Pro-Bush, or would prefer anyone but Bush.

However, and maybe I'm making this more simplified than it really is, I'm sure there are issues that concern you. If nothing else, vote based on those.

<rant>For example: Personally, I'm not impressed with the performance of our current administration and at this point, anyone else would be an improvement. I'm not crazy about John Kerry, but I'm going to vote for him anyway based on issues that concern me. Bush is trashing the environment (not to mention the English language), keeping scientists from doing research that could potentially save lives, starting a war based on false pretences and costing taxpayers millions (billions?) of dollars, and furthermore, he's making important decisions that affect millions of people, based on what "god" is telling him to do.</rant>

I'll end by saying that if more people (myself included) had made the effort to vote in 2000, the outcome might have been much different.

[LethalWolfe]

I'll end by saying that if more people (myself included) had made the effort to vote in 2000, the outcome might have been much different.


You mean Bush would have won in an landslide? :p


Lethal

[MattG]

You mean Bush would have won in an landslide? :p


Lethal
I meant we might have had a better outcome :D