Not Obama, nor McCain, but still voting - Why?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by redwarrior, Sep 10, 2008.

  1. redwarrior macrumors 603

    redwarrior

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    in the Dawg house
    #1
    There are those posting here that have said that they will not vote for either of these two candidates. I'd like to know why.

    I am not asking what it is that you don't like about each of them, rather, why you think that voting for someone else will make any difference. We know, or maybe we don't, that one of these two men will be elected. So, isn't a vote for someone else simply the same as not voting at all?
     
  2. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #2
    The bragging rights of "I didn't vote for this guy!"

    :D
     
  3. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #3
    there are still two group

    1. won't vote

    2. vote for 3rd candidate

    I guess they all feel the same, the two party system does not offer what they want to see. They might occasionally vote "against" somebody, but mostly not voting "for" somebody.
     
  4. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #4
    I'd rather not really get into my reasoning behind my vote or whether I intend to vote for some random candidate. However, I think your logic is fairly grounded in the sense that a vote for neither is like no vote at all.

    You can look at this a couple of ways. Voting for say Nader is still a vote. A citizen exercises their right to vote. Whether their vote actually mattered may be immaterial to them. They take pride in voting regardless of the outcome. This may not be for everyone and many can and will argue that the warm fuzzy feeling you get from actually having an opinion and voting based on such opinion isn't going to solve the country's problems. Yet you can't exactly argue with the psychology behind it, now can you?

    You can then argue that a vote for say Nader (I'm only using him because it seems like a good name to use) may make some difference. It may be that there are enough people in this country who feel the same way and who knows, maybe it makes some difference. Maybe not. Maybe it is the theory that the citizen cannot swallow voting for either but they must vote as it's their "duty".

    I think as a US Citizen I have a duty to act. I do not have a duty to act in a manner in which is status quo. I have a choice, that is what I still believe in here. My choice may make zero difference, but in the end it was my choice and I'll stand by my choice.

    Likewise, voting to me is like Jury Duty. In some cases it's a hassle and a break in your standard schedule. It's often a long day and if you're picked then the days just got longer. Me, it's a right and it's a duty. There are so many people who do so much more than I do and like Voting ... I find it incrediably selfish of me if I do not vote or show up for JD.

    Back to voting, we can all save a couple of moments and simply not vote if we're not going to make a choice between the two. You can forego the free "I Voted" sticker and just stay home and do nothing. I ask you though, if everyone stayed home because they didn't think they'd make a difference where exactly would we be?

    Forgive me for not explaining if I am voting for one over the other or whether I am voting for either. I'm sure there are far more educated and opinionated people around here that will certainly answer that question.
     
  5. redwarrior thread starter macrumors 603

    redwarrior

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    in the Dawg house
    #5
    I have heard it said in past elections that because of the distribution of votes (according to the polls), that not voting helps one candidate more than the other. I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on this as well, as it pertains, if it does at all, to this election.

    Edit: jessica., your response is actually exactly what I was looking for. You certainly do not need to state your political preferences at all, in fact, I was hoping that we wouldn't get into that here anyway. And, for the record, I agree with your views 100%. I don't want to serve on jury duty, and the one time I was called I was able to get out of it because I was nursing a 3 month old! But if I were called again, I would gladly serve. On the other hand, when I first moved to the area I live in now, I didn't know any of the local candidates, and therefore did not vote in the first election that I was eligible to vote in. I think I did the right thing there.
     
  6. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #6
    I see it as trying to send a message that voters see this third party has it right when it comes to policies X, Y, and Z.

    You could say the same thing about voting Dem in TX and OK, or voting GOP in NY or CA, it's not like those states are going to all of a sudden switch sides. So the weaker side voters should just stay home.

    I live in TX, I voted in 2004, skipped in 2000 since my wife and I were split and were just going to cancel each other out. But just because I'm not voting GOP doesn't mean I don't want my voice heard, even if it may be weak.

    It may be a sense of idealism but we'll never get a viable third party or break the 2 party monopoly if no one ever votes third party. I salute all those who keep pushing their ideals and trying to create more alternatives for our democracy. But I also maintain that if you have any preference between the 2 candidates and you live in a state that is up for grabs in the election, voting third party is not a good idea because you'll only be working to put the candidate you don't prefer into the office.
     
  7. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #7
    Of course there are exceptions to every rule/opinion/thought. Right? You just moved somewhere and you haven't a clue who is what and such. You can rely on locals to give their opinions but that can be quite dangerous in the end. It's like taking stock tips from a 17 year old on Mac Rumors. ;)

    I certainly agree with people getting out of JD for good reason. I also agree with not voting because you're completely new to the area and it's more of a local vote. I certainly didn't intend to come off as someone who basically thinks anyone is a f-up if they do not vote or serve on JD. I do however think that not voting because Gossip Girl is on or because you can't be bothered to spend one day away from your normal daily activities is downright reckless. Again, exceptions and such to everything, but still. It's just so nice that we're given these rights but everyone is welcome to pass on them.
     
  8. redwarrior thread starter macrumors 603

    redwarrior

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    in the Dawg house
    #8
    It irritates me to no end when the numbers go down because of rain, but they always do. We are very spoiled here in the United States, and should certainly take our rights seriously and exercise them.:)
     
  9. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #9
    To send a message. When politicians choose positions they (for better or for worse) take into consideration how that position will effect people voting for them in the future. By casting a vote for a third party candidate you are following through, and "calling the bluff" of the candidate. You are saying, I will not vote for anyone who does "X".

    People say that you're throwing your vote away, but I think that is a backwards way of thinking about it. A vote isn't as simple as choosing the lesser of two evils. It's about sending a message to the politicians, to the parties, and to anyone else who will listen.

    I'd go so far as to say that people who vote their conscience and withhold votes like this and vote for others are actually making a bigger difference. The average Ron Paul Vote or Bob Barr vote sends a bigger message than the average John McCain vote. And maybe the next time around the main-party candidates will do what needs to be done to get those votes the next time around.

    Just my $.02
     
  10. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #10
    That is another logical view that I can completely handle. I hadn't really thought about the low numbers being a way to show that neither candidate is suitable. I may be misreading though, but I think we're in agreement that voting for the random candidate is in fact still a vote and by the looks of it ... it sends a message still.

    IMO I would like my vote to count, but I'd also like to send a message and get my free sticker. :D
     
  11. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #11
    Yeah, then both candidates looks at the low numbers and agree to step aside and let the race begin again with candidates that might be more suitable. They don't accept the win, they just step aside.

    That's what happens, isn't it?
     
  12. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #12
    Don't worry about "'es", Jessica. He is full of hatred and sarcasm.

    And yes... you're right. Voting for ANY candidate is still a vote. You can go in and vote for yourself if you want to. And like I said before, a vote for a small party candidate can be argued to be more powerful than 1 vote for a big party candidate. It definitely sends a message to the larger parties, especially when it can mean the difference between winning and losing. You can be sure that the republicans are doing everything they can to get Ron Paul votes this year, and a few years ago the Nader votes were the same.
     
  13. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #13
    Must you really go down this needy route of belittlement. I'm sure Jessica is intelligent enough to make her own choice on my opinion. Maybe you can respect her enough to allow her to have her own opinion on this.

    Either address my point directly or it looks like you're so unsure of your own opinion that you must make ad hominem comments to divert attention away from your own weak arguments. You're not a Republican by any chance, are you.
     
  14. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #14
    Of course not, don't be silly. Even when there was a recount, a few Chads that hung themselves, etc., the true loser didn't exactly step aside. I never anticipated or anticipate that a candidate will step aside because votes are low. I also never believed that they would care to really research the low vote count so long as they're leading. No one cares much about anything until it directly affects their bottom line. Dems or Republicans alike.

    I believe that every candidate out there trying to get more people to vote are only showing their 11th hour allegiance to voting. When it no longer matters and they're sitting pretty in the oval office, I don't think they'll give it another thought for another three years.

    I was merely saying that I can see fivepoint's side of things. I don't have to totally agree. Likewise, I don't have to disagree just to hold my own in a forum like this. I can simply point out that another view isn't so hard to swallow.
     
  15. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #15
    To answer the original post, I will vote for the libertarian candidate. I am from Alabama, and my vote does not matter here - in the sense that Alabama a-l-w-a-y-s votes for the republican presidential candidate (unless you go back far enough). Although my vote for the libertarian will be absolutely meaningless in a practical sense, I still want that party to get some recognition.
     
  16. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #16
    Why am I not going to vote for a mainline canidate? Well two reasons.

    1. I don't want to contribute to either of them taking office. Personally, I think that they'll both be massive screw ups if taking office. I don't want to be mad at myself for supporting either one of them in a few years when things may be worse.

    2. One thing that I hate is people that don't vote (when they could have) but complain about those in office. I'm gonna exercise my voting rights, just not in support of Obama or McCain. So I'll still be able to complain when one of those two takes office.
     
  17. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #17
    Because not voting isn't doing anything at all, and by just sucking it up and voting for one of the two main candidates, all you are doing is perpetuating this broken two-party system. If people are truly sick of both republicans and democrats, then the only way to show it is by having a strong third-party turnout.
     
  18. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #18
    I plan to vote for a third party candidate, because I refuse to vote for someone who I don't at least mostly agree with. Also if they get a high enough percentage of the vote maybe in the next election more people will not think of it as wasting their vote for a third party and may actually look at their postions instead of just the party that the candidate is from. Also the more people who vote for a third party candidate the more likely for a major party that is in power to change some positions to try to get those voters back.

    And just one more thing there are other things on the ballot such as elections for congress and state legislators that I want to vote in.
     
  19. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #19
    If you vote your mind you always win. I do not like Obama or McCain but feel I don't want my vote wasted. Even though I don't live in a swing state my vote truly is kind of wasted, but with that mentality why should anyone vote.

    At least a 3rd party candidate will get money for his campaigning next time around. I would much rather vote my mind than vote for someone I don't like or not vote at all.

    jon
     
  20. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #20
    because both tickets would make awful administrations?
    if you like Bobb Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney (libertarian, constitution, independent and green parties respectively) then go ahead and vote for them.
    i used to think the only reason to vote for someone was to elect them.
     
  21. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #21
    Here we call it a 'bloody nose' and the Daily Mail seem to use it an awful lot. In that so long as you don't vote Labour and vote for anyone else - it's still a vote against them. Therefore giving them a bloody nose, which, apparently we did at the last election since they lost a big chunk o' seats.
    A vote for somebody is the most powerful, a vote against somebody is also a big deal (though not as effective).

    I don't know how similar the voting system is in the US.
     
  22. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #22
    Why don't ppl vote? They're idiots.

    EDIT - I hope someone understands the joke and doesn't take it personally.
     
  23. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #23
    Not voting for one of the 2 major parties is not throwing your vote away. What it does is causes the 2 major parties to start looking at why people are voting that way and will do stuff to bring those reasons into the fold.

    The Dem and Rep party are more or less middle of the road party. They are moderate in general. The 3rd parties to the right and the left when they get enough power the Rep and Dem look at a way to bring them into the fold.

    Voting for a 3rd party gets that voices heard.

    not voting is a waste because it can not get the attention of one of the 2 majors parties.

    That being said I think I am voting for a 3rd party this year because I do not like the 2 candidates and think they both are complete crap for different reasons.
     
  24. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #24
    i think third party voting can be good or bad

    for instance lets say we are in 2004 and you hate bush and you really like nader. in that case it's a bad idea to vote for nader because since the priority ought to be getting bush out.
    but in 2008 you might really hate both and not care how things turn out so then 3rd party is probably a good choice. or write your own name in for fun.
     
  25. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #25
    And speaking of belittlement...
     

Share This Page