I may fry for this one...

[Mully]

I don't like politics because for non-politicians on very political subjects, I believe it's all hearsay. Also, people are really die hard on politics and saying the wrong thing, like "i believe in this thing" will cause a rift between you and that person. Everyone believes their way is the right way; i.e. their vote is the correct vote. Not me, I believe both people can make a difference, both will make mistakes. When I turned 18 and renewed my licenses, they made me choose a party...I was 18 and didn't care. I checked one. I don't even remember which.

The main part of this thread is: I don't know who to vote for; I could take time and research the best candidate and vote. I could watch all the debates and caucuses and read all the articles from every source so I can get the correct news. I could say I watch FoxNews, but some people would say Fox is too right-winged, or could say I watch CNN, but that would be too left. I could vote for the "best fit" candidate regardless of party.

It's my constitutional right to vote, but isn't it my constitutional right NOT to vote too?

I don't bitch and say, "well if the guy I voted for was in office, everything would be different." I keep my mouth shut because no one person in office could appease me all the way. I guess that is why I don't want to vote.

I DON'T WANT TO VOTE! I DON'T WANT TO VOTE!

Is that wrong? What do you think? What should I do? I want to do, what I want to do, but don't know how to say it.


**********

To make this post even remotely interesting, here is a political picture I enjoy!

[Mully]

Just found this Onion video...

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/t ... d_you_give

"Blaming others for being uninformed is always a great way of seeming informed yourself."

[Zeus]

I've been saying for years the only way to truly have ever person's vote really matter is to put a "none of the above" option on the ballot. It not only stops you from being forced to vote for the lesser of evils, it actually eliminates any reason not to vote. That way you can always properly express your opinion. I don't vote right now 'cause there's no one for me to vote for. We don't have write in votes up here otherwise I'd vote for Tyler Durden (that's right, I'd rather have a psychotic figment of imagination of a movie character run my country than those idiots). Spoiling your ballot isn't anymore of a statement than "I'm too stupid to vote".

But putting in that option will force accountability into the system, we can't have that now, can we?

[bovine]

can't argue ideology or religion. It's great to have an opinion on certain matters, but arguing how "what I believe is right" is only going to get other people angry because either they believe the opposite, or a slightly different version of your beliefs. Voting is good because it give you a voice in the decisions and administration of your government. If you do not vote, you are not getting a say (well, there are MANY other ways to influence public decision making and administration, but voting is the simplest and easiest).

Perhaps what you might find more pleasing is a voting system that takes all votes into account, not just throws out all the votes that did not elect the winning candidate in a constituency. "First Past the Post" is a fairly good system in a two party style election, but when it is in a multiparty situation you might find that the majority of votes are thrown out and a candidate that has received less than 50% of the vote is given the seat.

[Tessian]

While the choices in voting sucks, not voting only allows that horrible choice to succeed. You can't help change a system by abstaining from it. If you hate the two major party candidates, vote for another party on the ticket. Green party, Libertarians, etc... pick SOMEONE to vote for; the little guys will never win anytime soon, but the more votes they do get the stronger they become next year around.

South Park said it best: It is always a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich:

[Zeus]

While the choices in voting sucks, not voting only allows that horrible choice to succeed. You can't help change a system by abstaining from it. If you hate the two major party candidates, vote for another party on the ticket. Green party, Libertarians, etc... pick SOMEONE to vote for; the little guys will never win anytime soon, but the more votes they do get the stronger they become next year around.

South Park said it best: It is always a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich:

Like I've said before, I just can't bring myself to vote for someone I don't want. Until I can properly express my opinion, there's no reason for me to support the lesser of evils. To me, it does more harm than good

[Tessian]

Like I've said before, I just can't bring myself to vote for someone I don't want. Until I can properly express my opinion, there's no reason for me to support the lesser of evils. To me, it does more harm than good

Then don't vote for ANY candidate-- vote for a party whose ideals you support (assuming we're not talking GOP or Dems). There's no way that candidate will win, but you are doing SOMETHING by voting and showing support for that party. Still a hell of a lot better than not voting.

[Zeus]

Like I've said before, I just can't bring myself to vote for someone I don't want. Until I can properly express my opinion, there's no reason for me to support the lesser of evils. To me, it does more harm than good

Then don't vote for ANY candidate-- vote for a party whose ideals you support (assuming we're not talking GOP or Dems). There's no way that candidate will win, but you are doing SOMETHING by voting and showing support for that party. Still a hell of a lot better than not voting.

Not if you hate what all the parties stand for

[Tessian]

Like I've said before, I just can't bring myself to vote for someone I don't want. Until I can properly express my opinion, there's no reason for me to support the lesser of evils. To me, it does more harm than good

Then don't vote for ANY candidate-- vote for a party whose ideals you support (assuming we're not talking GOP or Dems). There's no way that candidate will win, but you are doing SOMETHING by voting and showing support for that party. Still a hell of a lot better than not voting.

Not if you hate what all the parties stand for

You're telling me you hate ALL parties? You must be one of those morons that believes in total anarchy because there's a party for everyone these days if you believe in at least SOME government.

[RentCavalier]

Not really--yeah, there are plenty of different parties, but there are only TWO parties that have ANY amount of political clout or strength, and if you disagree with those parties, then you'll be stuck with Jesse Ventura--a lot of great ideas, but nothing you can do about it.

[Zeus]

Then don't vote for ANY candidate-- vote for a party whose ideals you support (assuming we're not talking GOP or Dems). There's no way that candidate will win, but you are doing SOMETHING by voting and showing support for that party. Still a hell of a lot better than not voting.

Not if you hate what all the parties stand for

You're telling me you hate ALL parties? You must be one of those morons that believes in total anarchy because there's a party for everyone these days if you believe in at least SOME government.

No there isn't. I want a party which will promise me full accountability in its actions through tangible, realistic means. One which will revamp the goverment in order to ensure that all future governments will actually be properly accountable for their actions. I'm not asking for it in a specific way just asking that the ball get rolling so we can fix the biggest problem in our society: people who don't actually believe in their governments.

Since I'll never get that, all I'm really asking for is a None of the Above option on my ballot so I can go out every few years and properly say "you're all a waste of skin and bones". But that is, in and of itself, a form of accountability.

[Tessian]

"I'm a waste of skin and bones".

FTFY

And we all wish that cars ran on optimism and there was no need for currency and everyone loved their neighbors and the human race was in harmony with mother hearth.

Get your crying head out of your ass. Unless YOU plan on starting such a party then stfu and take SOME PART in the system. You sitting off and saying "No political party is perfect so I'm gonna sit on the sidelines and whine". I hate to use the cliche, but in political systems it fits-- If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

[Zeus]

"I'm a waste of skin and bones".

FTFY

And we all wish that cars ran on optimism and there was no need for currency and everyone loved their neighbors and the human race was in harmony with mother hearth.

Get your crying head out of your ass. Unless YOU plan on starting such a party then stfu and take SOME PART in the system. You sitting off and saying "No political party is perfect so I'm gonna sit on the sidelines and whine". I hate to use the cliche, but in political systems it fits-- If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Voting for the lesser of evils is being a HUGE part of the problem.

And don't presume I haven't tried to do anything about it

[Mully]

Not poking fun - Zeus, do you get to vote in Oh, Canada? I'm American, therefore, no little about how Canada runs.

Also, I don't think Zeus and I share the same views. I just don't know who to muster behind and vote for.. I did "Party" vote last time. I like thinking, what if John Kerry was in office, what would he do differently?

On Accountability: I was flipping through channels and came across "The Hills Have Eyes 2." Never seen it, didn't want to, but the part I came in on was pretty funny. Army soldiers were getting reamed by their instructor and one of the trainees says he disagreed with the president because he lies and wanted accountability. The Army Trainer says, "So what? That's what they do! No president has told the truth since Truman and he said 'The Buck Stops Here.'" I know it's a movie, and "a" portrayal of the Army, but there is some truth to that.

I think Zeus wants the president to act like a C.E.O. - "here is the public records, here is what we are doing, and you can fire me." but the truth on that point is, look at the Enron's and Haliburton's etc.

[Zeus]

I think Zeus wants the president to act like a C.E.O. - "here is the public records, here is what we are doing, and you can fire me." but the truth on that point is, look at the Enron's and Haliburton's etc.

Like a CEO? No, that's what they're doing now. I want real accountability

[bovine]

when the green party gets over 5% (which is the percentage of the vote they need to start getting "big boy" federal funding), things MAY change in how seriously these other parties take environmental issues. NDP, Grits and Tories are all terrible. Everyone is obviously jealous of the Bloc, and unless we have a party in parliament that takes at least one issue seriously, we're going to be stuck in the political rut until we change from a single-member plurality voting system that is obviously not meant for a multi-party lower house into a more progressive (possibly Proportional Representation) system. If you only vote in Canada, you're not getting any type of message through to government, because here more than more places our votes don't count for shit.

[Zeus]

What kills me is the 11% of the votes in our last provincial election (59% voter turnout) went to the Green party....and they have a total of 0 members of provincial parliment. That means that 6.49% of the population that actually voted have just as much as say as the 41% (including me) that didn't vote. That's fucking sad

[bovine]

since the winning candidate only needs more votes than the other people running, he/she (most likely he) does not need the majority of citizens to vote for them. This means that potentially, if 4 people are running, the winning candidate only needs 25.1% of the vote if everyone gets 25%, 25%, and 24.9%. This is obviously an unlikely situation, but the fact that this CAN happen, and does to less ridiculous degrees, Canada is more often than not under non-majority rule. In case you were wondering, that is not good for democracy and making the voter feel like their vote counts for anything. As potentially, a high percentage of the vote can be simply thrown out because we follow the Single Member Plurality voting system, and not something better suited for the multi-party environment in Canada.

Zeus, you are TOTALLY justified in your contempt for the system. They tried to implement the Proportional Representation system (in that a party gets seats equal to their percentage of the vote, not simply winning in each constituency) in Ontario and British Columbia. Both were voted down in provincial referendums, but the BC referendum actually achieved over 50% of the vote, but was still nullified because the winning stipulation was that it needed a Super Majority (over 60%) which may or may not be ridiculous depending on your point of view (like if you think that to get voted in you don't need a majority, but in this referendum, you needed more than a majority to pass the legislation).

Going back to the US system, they work under the SMP (single member plurality) system and that works great for their two party system. Alas, as you saw with the Bush/Gore election, when a third party tries to break in, they can be accused of stealing votes from one or the other parties because the system is created for the existence of two parties. It's a wonder Nader, the Greens, and Ross Perot did as well as they did under the SMP system.

[Zeus]

I begged and pleaded for everyone I knew or who ever met me to vote "yes" for that Proportional referendum. And it fucking lost by a 2-to-1 margin. Stupid morons in this fucking province (mostly in Toronto ;-), that was the first time in 80 years we've had a referendum regarding our political system. And it would have resulting in a better system. Albiet only slightly better, but better nonetheless. All we did was tell our provincial politicians "you're doing a bang-up job fucking us all in the ass year after year with your pathetic system, keep up the good work". But most idiots were too fucking stupid to see past the now since it would probably have taken a few years before we saw any real benefits of the new system (like the Green party having a voice).

But hey, we all know the world's run by the idiots. Dubya is a great example

[SineSwiper]

You can't take a black and white view of the politicians and parties. Nobody is going to 100% like one guy or 100% the other. Just because somebody isn't perfect doesn't mean that you shouldn't vote for them. In fact, not voting for them is going to nudge the odds that you are going to get the guy that you least like. It's a statistical fact.

"But, I don't like either of them!"

It doesn't matter. You like one of them more than the other. You feel that one has a better set of values than the other. You think that one has better political ideals than the other. Therefore, you vote for whoever you prefer.

Not voting is NOT a statement. It is the lack of statement. Agnosticism is not a religion, so "not voting" is not a vote. Besides, statements are only effective if there is a noticeable population doing the same thing. Boycotting Sweden because you don't like Sweden is not effective. Nobody is doing it, so the statement doesn't hold up.

At worse, a non-vote is going to have the media saying "Hmmm...the voting turn out was low. Meh, whatever. Who cares?" Of course, this WON'T happen this election because EVERYBODY is going to vote. In fact, this is the most sane set of candidates we've had in 30 years.

[bovine]

but at the same time, don't think that voting is your only option, as a citizen, to get your voice heard by the government. Voting is the lowest, simplest, and most basic way to communicate with your government. If you have a message that you'd like to be a little more articulate than "I vote for this guy" or "I vote for no one", then you should really consider writing or calling whomever won in your constituency that would be best regarding the concern that you have. Protesting, lobbying, and private members bills are all different ways you can send a more articulate message to your representatives.

[SineSwiper]

True. Despite popular opinion, voting is the worst form of protest. Though, it is the most basic and most powerful way of making a global change. During a party cycle (D->R->D), there's a huge paradigm shift between political ideals that is felt everywhere.

However, voting is only useful for great, global change, not for protesting a lesser issue. Vocal protests, media attention, letters to people of power are better forms.

Violence is probably the best form of protest, but it involves a truly strong and passionate set of people that can do enough damage to force fear into the government. The LA Riots, the New York Draft Riots, and possibly the Black Panthers were good examples of violent protests that worked. Even Thomas Jefferson agreed on this point: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." and "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.".

[Zeus]

It's not about agreeing 100% with any one candidate. It's about trying to find one that will bring to the table even 10% of what I hope or to give me some belief that they're going to do something constructive with their time in office. Still lookin'

[Julius Seeker]

Bah! I still think the best system is that the greatest fighter in the village should be the King.