Voting may actually be bad !

[Still Growing]

There is a common misconception that its your duty to vote. Our society tells us that if you don't vote then your voice is not being heard or that you don't respect those that died for your freedom to vote.

If voting is a freedom then shouldn't we be free not to vote without public redicule. People really become angry at me when I say that I'm not voting in the Presidential Election. They say "That's horrible, YOU HAVE TO VOTE"

I say that if you don't like who's running for President "DON'T VOTE" !

Currently the most powerful voting segment is the undecided segment. Both Reps and Dems will know that their loyal base will vote their way. Its the undecided voters who make the most waves.

Imagine if there was an even larger group of undecided voters who simply did not vote. This could potentially create a demand for a new party to rise up.

Or better yet, I think that there should be a third box to check called the "no confidence vote". A box we could check to show that we do have a voice but that we do not have confidence in either party.

[ragtag]

I don't know how it is in the US, but in some countries they count blank votes. It's basically voters who show up to vote and then don't vote for anyone or hand in an invalid vote. If lots of people vote for nobody, it's the same as vote of no confidence. It basically showed that you bothered to show up and vote so you care, but you didn't care for any of the candidates. I think this is a good way to show how you feel in an election.

Personally I think you should vote for who you believe in, even though they have no chance of winning an election. If I were voting in the US presidential election I would vote for Mike Gravel, even though I know there is no chance he will win, because I agree with him on most issues. I think way too many people vote tactically, voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than the candidate that they really agree with.

[JSB]

I'd like to see a binding "None of The Above" on every ballot, because at the moment, choosing between the two major parties is like deciding between a slap in the face and a kick in the balls --- I'll choose the slap in the face, but that doesn't mean I'll enjoy it.

[Eric Revelin]

Considering that there are already third parties that I can agree with, I'd rather put a vote in for one of them. I think it would be a more powerful gesture to take one of the existing third parties and put their candidate in the white house, like Ralph Nader. Either that or we'd need a huge amount of people to stage peaceful protests against the current nature of the system, preferably at least one group in all 50 states. It would have to be something the media couldn't ignore. There are more ways to vote than stuffing a ballot into a box.

[Brutha]

Or better yet, I think that there should be a third box to check called the "no confidence vote". A box we could check to show that we do have a voice but that we do not have confidence in either party.

If you want to show that you have no confidence in either major party, why don't you vote a third party candidate?

[Marco Polo]

All people who can admit to themselves they don't know crap about politics, should never vote. There are so many people who know nothing, and then a few minutes before they head off to the voting booth they read some favourable article about a candidate and proceed to vote for him. It's ridiculous. All these arbitrary sway voters are ruining democracy.

[Fullcrum]

I'd hope someone could convince me of a different way to look at politics than this, but I'm putting this out there as I cannot find the counterargument:

There are many voters who have already decided that they're republican or democrat and nothing will change them from that. Politicians know that and do not target that audience with their campaigns, but instead target the swing voters. Now, what makes voters SWING exactly? Hmmm...

Thinking...

Well, think of it like this. If they were clear on their values and studied all candidates as well as the political state of the country and the world, their choice would be settled and no amount of "campaign" or sweet-talk from charismatic Obama or homely McCain would cause them to change their minds. The views of the candidates are EASY to find on the internet on their websites and certain critical sources.

"Swing" voters are those who are not clear on their values and so are swayed by the rhetoric, not the views, of the candidates.

Basically, appealing to swing voters is appealing to a low common denominator.

I'm not even voting age but I studied this stuff and convinced my family to vote my way. We tend to share similar views anyway, it wasn't hard .

When you take this reasoned, and, in my view, intelligent approach to voting, when candidates turn their backs on certain things they said previously, as both Obama and McCain have done to appeal to a wider audience, it can really cause a head-trip. Like "I supported this, and then you changed it, why?"

It's to appeal to swing voters. Shouldn't politicians stick by what they know is best for the country? Why do they change their views, then? I guess one of the glories of America is the ability of compromise. If that is so, then candidates should bank on that, not on their unchanging policies of what they know is best for America, and then turning around and changing them.

[coollikeme]

If you vote for Obama, he will be a country destroyer.

[Trezker]

Here in Sweden we can vote for anything we can think of. Every party has their own ballot, then there a blank note where you can write anything you want.

The Donald Duck party got over 100 votes if you put the different spellings together. They do exist, want to bring more Donald Duck into schools...

Saruman for president 1 vote

Here's the list of written votes.
Handskrivna partibeteckningar

Then there's almost 100.000 blank votes.

[kthdsn]

I don't vote because I don't want to choose person to make decisions on all of the issues. If I could vote on each issue instead, I would be more inclined to make my voice count.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

"Swing" voters are those who are not clear on their values and so are swayed by the rhetoric, not the views, of the candidates.

Basically, appealing to swing voters is appealing to a low common denominator.

I'm not sure I completely agree...

Take myself for example, I have many liberal views as well as many conservative views. I suppose I could create a pro and con sheet for Obama and McCain and pick the lesser of two evils however this is where compromise is made.

Furthermore, its my and many other's believe that special interests dominate our two party system and the result is that no real changes take place.

I think that I and many others are disenchanted with the Rep & Dem parties.

As long as swing voters like myself settle on a Rep or Dem then there becomes less of argument that can be made for an Independent to truely pick up steam for funding and attention by our media. Both are required to have a shot at an election. Brutha made a good point that I could just vote for an Independent if they are on the ticket. The key point I am trying to make is that a "vote of no confidence" , "none of the above" or simply not voting may carry as much weight as voting for someone you don't believe in.

[Fullcrum]

Views taken

Not voting will make little difference in the American system. They'll just think "low voter turnout" and nothing will get done.

[Still Growing]

yes you are probably right.

[Brutha]

Not voting will make little difference in the American system. They'll just think "low voter turnout" and nothing will get done.

On the other hand if 10% vote for independends each election that might create change in the politcal system (probably more change than those people staying at home).

Brutha made a good point that I could just vote for an Independent if they are on the ticket.

I don't no the exact numbers but I thought that most of the time there is one on the ticket in the US isn't there?

I suppose I could create a pro and con sheet for Obama and McCain and pick the lesser of two evils however this is where compromise is made.

Democracy is all about compromises.
I prefer a political systems in which people have to make compromises to one where someone at the top makes decisions without making compromises.

[Barcs]

I have to agree that it is better to vote third party than not at all. If you go through all of the candidates you will usually find one suitable to your beliefs and needs. At least this way people will notice that instead of 40% of the country not voting, 40% will go towards 3rd parties and we might actually see the system change. With people not voting at all it seems like they are sitting back and doing nothing while their country goes down the crapper. I say, make a statement and vote 3rd party. It's the only way things will even have a chance of changing. Of course there's always the possiblity that it is all rigged and our votes already mean nothing, but I do like the idea of a "no confidence" vote. I would also prefer to have the people vote on issues, rather than voting for somebody to make these decisions. That would be a true democracy.

[Still Growing]

Barcs,

Well it is rigged, legally. Gore won the popular vote yet Bush got in due to delegates.

If more American people voted for Gore shouldn't the delegates respect the people's votes? Guess not.

[Brutha]

If more American people voted for Gore shouldn't the delegates respect the people's votes? Guess not.

If you don't look at the "inregularities" of the election, just getting more votes in total is not the criteria that the American constiution sees as the one that determines the presidend.
It has something to do with giving states more rights.

[Keith]

The US "first past the post" voting system is less than ideal. I think the Bush-Gore-Nader election showed that.

If the people had been able to vote "Nader then Gore then Bush "instead of "Nader" or "Gore" or "Bush", it's a pretty safe bet that the election result would've been different.

[Lauxa]

I used to always go to the polls and vote Libertarian, hoping that would somehow encourage formation of 3rd parties. And then this year, Ron Paul was running and I was really excited thinking this was the best chance to get a Libertarian in the Presidency. Then of course Paul's campaign fizzled, but also all the "paleo-consertives" started fleeing the Republican party and heading to the Libertarian party in droves and we end up with Bob Barr as the Libertarian candidate, who I really don't care for either. I could go and write in Ron Paul, but what difference would it make?

How effective is it really to mark a ballot at a voting center? Especially when it is cast on electronic voting machines with no paper trail? Is it worth 30 minutes of your time? Is there something else you could do with that 30 minutes that would make a bigger impact?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

I used to always go to the polls and vote Libertarian, hoping that would somehow encourage formation of 3rd parties.

The 'first past the post' voting system largely prevents 3rd parties from gaining momentum. When voters have to choose between (a) the person they really want to win and (b) realistically voting against the person they really want to lose, the 3rd party candidate is always going to lose out.

If you want to encourage 3rd parties, lobby for a change to preferential voting.

The Democrats may be at least somewhat open to that, given the precedent of Bush-Gore-Nader.

Originally Posted by Lauxa

Is there something else you could do with that 30 minutes that would make a bigger impact?

I doubt any of our lives are so full that we couldn't free up two lots of thirty minutes for something that really matters.

[Gabo]

For people that want a candidate sharing Ron Paul's values, you might check out Chuck Baldwin. He is the Constitution Party candidate, and very much supports Ron Paul.

Personally, I am torn between voting for Baldwin or Barr at the moment.


Not voting is pointless if you have a political opinion.
Chances are that one of the many parties will appeal to your particular opinion, so you might as well vote for a candidate you agree with rather than throw away your vote by not participating.