Generic voting question (1 Viewer)

[Walter C]

I thought the Simpsons episode with Kodos and Kang was really spot on. I mean, if it really comes down to the idea of choosing the "lesser of 2 evils", then something is truly wrong. But I won't get into it any further.

 

[DaveF]

"Bob Dole don't need this!"


Let me be specific: I am recommending each and every one of you not vote. And then I will vote. And my vote will count. A great deal.

 

[TravisR]

"Bob Dole don't need this!"

I like "I am Clin-ton." and "Go ahead, throw your vote away. Ahahahahahahaha"

 

[DaveF]

Classic episode!

 

[Walter C]

"I don't understand why we build a ray gun to aim at a planet I never even heard of."

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"

 

[mattCR]

While we point out that most votes are decided by large number, this also goes the other way: it's a large number because a lot of people turned out to vote.

I admit, I'm one of the few remaining stubborn, hardcore advocates of the electoral college system, but I find that a reason why we vote is to make sure an election isn't close.. or that it is, depending on your point of view.
Dewey Defeats Truman afterall.
The problem is, we are governed anymore by polls as much as anything.. and that hurts everyone.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

OK I had to look it up:


And:

 

[Mike Frezon]

This sort of thinking is maddening. This presupposes that the only reason someone's vote "counts" is if an election is close.

That makes no sense.

One's vote always counts. And the people of this country should be exceedingly grateful for the opportunity to go to the polls to elect a representative form of government. This is one of those things--along with a great wealth--that too many people in this country take for granted.

Your vote always matters.

 

[andrew markworthy]

This sort of thinking is maddening. This presupposes that the only reason someone's vote "counts" is if an election is close.

Totally agree. The argument is also nonsensical. The principle of a democratic system is that it is the opinion of the many, not the interests of the individual that matters. But in saying 'your vote doesn't count' what you are in effect saying is that you like democracy when the majority agree with you, and when the majority don't, your vote is useless!
I totally sympathise with people who feel exasperated if they live in a region where the majority always vote in one direction no matter what, but that is in no way an excuse not to vote. I always vote, even though I know the opposition will win. BUT: in voting I always remind myself that: (1) I have the right to vote; (2) nobody will try to stop me from voting or force me to vote for a particular party and (3) I can bitch and whine about the results of an election without fear of a knock on the door in the night from the secret police. Democracy isn't necessarily perfect, but be thankful it's what we've got rather than one of the alternatives.

 

[Stan]

Totally agree. The argument is also nonsensical. The principle of a democratic system is that it is the opinion of the many, not the interests of the individual that matters. But in saying 'your vote doesn't count' what you are in effect saying is that you like democracy when the majority agree with you, and when the majority don't, your vote is useless!
I totally sympathise with people who feel exasperated if they live in a region where the majority always vote in one direction no matter what, but that is in no way an excuse not to vote. I always vote, even though I know the opposition will win. BUT: in voting I always remind myself that: (1) I have the right to vote; (2) nobody will try to stop me from voting or force me to vote for a particular party and (3) I can bitch and whine about the results of an election without fear of a knock on the door in the night from the secret police. Democracy isn't necessarily perfect, but be thankful it's what we've got rather than one of the alternatives.

I like your reasoning. Even though I will be voting with the west side of my state for the presidential election, we have a lot of state races, governor and other initiatives that are still to be decided. I have always voted and will continue to, my vote may not mean much, but as you said, that's no excuse not to vote. Especially like the bitch and whine comment, if I haven't voted, I have no business complaining about how things turn out.
Thank you for your advice.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Stan /t/324255/generic-voting-question#post_3986872
...my vote may not mean much, but as you said, that's no excuse not to vote.

Stan:

Your vote IS IMPORTANT! It means as much as anyone else's--whether it's a close election or not. Whether it's a local race or national race. Whether your candidate wins or loses.

Your vote is the essence of democracy. Your vote is you standing up at a town hall meeting throwing your voice for or against an idea. Your vote is one of the most basic of rights granted by this nation's constitution that allows "we, the people" to participate in the democratic process on which our government is based.

It is shameful that voter turnout is not higher in America. The American public probably spends more time on elections such as American Idol rather than those which shape the policies under which we are taxed and governed. An informed and active electorate makes for a healthy, thriving democracy.

The smaller the number of voters, the greater the likelihood of electing people who don't represent the best interests of all Americans. It is important that we select those candidates who best represent our core beliefs and values. But if a large number of voters decided to opt out of the process, we could easily be stuck with officials elected by an organized minority who stand to gain from the result of that election.

Please, don't think your vote doesn't mean much. If everyone felt that way, our democracy could cease to exist.

 

[andrew markworthy]

P

lease, don't think your vote doesn't mean much. If everyone felt that way, our democracy could cease to exist.

Very true, and this applies to any democracy, not just the USA. However, don't you just occasionally wish there was a mandatory option on the voting slip where you could tick a box next to the words I think they're all useless and would prefer a randomly-selected primate from the nearest zoo?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by andrew markworthy /t/324255/generic-voting-question/30#post_3987296
...don't you just occasionally wish there was a mandatory option on the voting slip where you could tick a box next to the words I think they're all useless and would prefer a randomly-selected primate from the nearest zoo?

More than you know...

 

[schan1269]

We have a blogger here in Indiana(if I can find it, I'll link it) that wrote (summarizing)...
"The biggest way to show that you want your vote to count, and show both parties that they are both "off the reservation" is to show up...vote...but don't vote for anybody."
I think it would show a huge mass of the US is not happy with what the political process has become...

 

[Walter C]

Originally Posted by schan1269 /t/324255/generic-voting-question/30#post_3987307
"The biggest way to show that you want your vote to count, and show both parties that they are both "off the reservation" is to show up...vote...but don't vote for anybody."
I think it would show a huge mass of the US is not happy with what the political process has become...

The problem is, when people want to vote for a 3rd party candidate, it's considered "throwing away your vote". I think that speaks volumes about the current political system, and can understand why less people are willing to vote these days.

 

[Hugh Jackes]

Rather than 3rd-party, sometimes I think a "none of the above" option would be a more effective protest vote. The problem with 3rd party is that if theXYZ party guy wins, he has no natural power base in the other branches of government.
Jessie Ventura in Minnesota comes to mind. Some of his ideas were ok, some were crap, but with a state legislature full of Republicans and Democrats (or reverse order if you prefer), no one had the same priorities as him.
Take the Health Care Act as an example. Obama stated what he wanted. Reid and Pelosi advanced it, adding their own priorities and "druthers" to it. If a President ina 3rd party wanted to advance a piece of major legislation, he couldn't have done that. He would have had to invest every moment of his time writing the bill, whipping the congress, and coralling stragglers. I think it would have been an impossible job for a 3rd-party guy.
(I think that I have managed to write that without stating my opinion of the Act, and violating forum rules. Pretty proud of myself.)

 

[Stan]

Rather than 3rd-party, sometimes I think a "none of the above" option would be a more effective protest vote. The problem with 3rd party is that if theXYZ party guy wins, he has no natural power base in the other branches of government.
Jessie Ventura in Minnesota comes to mind. Some of his ideas were ok, some were crap, but with a state legislature full of Republicans and Democrats (or reverse order if you prefer), no one had the same priorities as him.
Take the Health Care Act as an example. Obama stated what he wanted. Reid and Pelosi advanced it, adding their own priorities and "druthers" to it. If a President ina 3rd party wanted to advance a piece of major legislation, he couldn't have done that. He would have had to invest every moment of his time writing the bill, whipping the congress, and coralling stragglers. I think it would have been an impossible job for a 3rd-party guy.
(I think that I have managed to write that without stating my opinion of the Act, and violating forum rules. Pretty proud of myself.)

Not a huge history buff, but can't recall 3rd party candidates (at least in presidential elections) winning anything in my lifetime. I'm definitely going to vote, but giving a vote to Ralph Nader (not even sure he's running this time) or people like him is completely wasted. This race is between two candidates, a vote for an outlier Libertarian or someone like that is pretty meaningless.
Hope I haven't said too much, still trying to stay within forum rules.

 

[Mike Frezon]

So far, everyone is doing a good job staying within the proper boundaries of the HTF rulebook!

The emergence of a viable third party would probably be a helpful thing in terms of shaking up the national system and making inroads in terms of cronyism, etc. The two major parties are so entrenched that a good shaking-up might be a healthy thing for the political process.

I hear what Hugh is saying about the difficulties of a 3rd party president working with a Republican or Democratic Congress. But that's how things ARE supposed to work. Legislators are supposed to work together for the greater good...representing their beliefs...but without letting partisanship get in the way of accomplishing things to improve the lives of their constituents. Politics is the art of compromise...and all that.

The current atmosphere in Washington lives and breathes partisanship and entrenchment which is why that "shake-up" I referenced might be a good thing to get elected officials understanding how the process is supposed to work.

Actually, all elected officials should be forced to watch 1776 and see how wise men debated and fought for their principles and still worked together to craft the framework of this nation. Maybe if current officials could sing and dance a little better...

 

[Walter C]

I think George Washington would have been disgusted if he saw what became of the political system in this country today. He did warn about the dangers of political parties during his Farewell Address.

 

[andrew markworthy]

The emergence of a viable third party would probably be a helpful thing in terms of shaking up the national system and making inroads in terms of cronyism, etc.

Hmmm ... not totally sure about that. A lot of Europe has three or more parties and it can result in coalition governments. This in turn can result in political inertia since the safe middle ground is always chosen as that is the only way of placating all the parties sharing power. This can sound like a good thing, but it also means that genuinely innovative reform can be hard to get through. It doesn't get rid of cronyism either, I'm afraid.