Does anyone else on here not vote?

Uh, I wasn't attempting to do so because there's really nothing to "refute," but OK I guess.

Of course one vote likely doesn't make a difference. But again, we've had millions of soldiers die to protect the freedom that we take for granted. So yeah, voting is the least people can do. Democracy and freedom both come with a responsibility even though people don't like hearing that.

The only way to change anything is for people to be educated on the issues, the candidates, and to vote. Doing none of the above and just bitching instead accomplishes nothing.

As for being to blame for voting for a candidate that was bad, well that's obvious. That's why being educated on a candidate's views helps. But voting is certainly better than doing nothing at all.

 

Please, for the love of god, spare me meaningless platitudes like "millions of soldiers die to protect the freedom that we take for granted", that's utter rubbish. The notion that most soldiers' deaths in wars were for the noble cause of defending democracy and freedom is a rather idealistic view, not really rooted in reality. Most soldiers died for petty economic, social, or ideological reasons, or just the whims of bloodthirsty rulers.

But even assuming that soldiers were really fighting and dying for freedom, then that includes the freedom to choose not to vote. What you are talking about is not freedom, but rather forcing people to participate in a political system they want no part of.

How educated one is on the candidates doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. I was educated enough on the candidates last year to know that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were unacceptable to me, and educated enough on the system to know that those were the only two who had an actual chance of winning. My vote for Jill Stein was not much different functionally from not voting at all.

Of course even if I voted for Obama, it would not have made any functional difference at all from voting for Jill Stein or not voting at all. Presidential elections are decided by millions of votes across many states. And the electoral college adds another layer of disenfranchisement in the U.S., as New York was predestined to give the same 29 electoral votes to Barack Obama regardless of how I voted. The odds that New York would ever be close enough to be decided by one vote (Obama won the state by nearly 2 million votes), and that New York's electoral votes would also be the deciding factor in the electoral college, are so incredibly infinitesimally small.

 

I mean...I voted for Obama...but then my mom and her family got upset (since they're republican). I don't think vote in retrospect could make a difference.

 

Complete nonsense. They did fight for those things, but undoubtedly for this country, too. Also, you're right; people do have the freedom not to vote. But again, I think there is a responsibility that comes with freedom, and voting and being engaged is part of that. I would argue that your freedom is affected in indirect ways if you don't vote.

And saying that being educated on a candidate really doesn't make much of a difference is so stupid I'm really not sure how to respond to that. Average Democrats and Republicans often have no clue about a candidate's view, and vote for their party's candidate solely because of the R or D next to their name. That's dangerous. There are gerrymandered districts in very "red" and "blue" parts of the country, and the people representing those districts really don't have to do much to get re-elected except play into the conservative or liberal persona. Obviously, some voters will vote for their party regardless because of things like abortion and gun control. But in terms of specific bills on economic policy or things like immigration, average Americans are ignorant on details of bills and how it would influence their life. As a result, all candidates have to do is B.S. voters on why they did/did not vote on something and their popularity won't be affected. That's why nothing changes in congress. This is an even bigger issue in national elections (ignorance). And even if both candidates are unacceptable, voting for one that you agree with more is better than doing nothing.

I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college, but people should still vote.

 

I don't view it as corrupt in Canada, but essentially yes.

People who complain in ways of "wah the government's so dumb they never do anything they're only ruining things and I don't vote" have no right to say those things. If someone isn't going to at least TRY and change the government to a party they identify themselves with, then they have no business trying to bring the government down. Either try or don't complain about it.

 

During the last election I
1) was too lazy to fill out a form for an absentee ballet.
2) didn't like Romney and didn't care much for Obama (though if I had voted it would have been for a latter).

So, I have yet to vote. Maybe in this years Governor election, though. No way in Hell do I want Cuccinelli to win.

 

Supposedly it's compulsory in my country, so yes.

Actually, it's only compulsory to turn up to the voting booth, so in theory, I could throw my ballot paper in the bin, or draw a dick on it, and I won't get a fine. Quite a few people do this.

 

My thoughts exactly. Voting is a civic duty. Considering I'm not white or male, a lot of people had to fight the former status quo for me to have the right to vote.

 

Note voting because your 1 vote doesn't make a difference is exactly why it won't make any difference. This is how the voting system is designed to work. If your one vote can decide the outcome of the election, what about everyone else's votes? If everyone's votes can decide who will win the election, there will be a lot of winners, don't you think? The system is meant to show which candidate has the majority support. If people like you who don't vote actually voted, your votes combined would matter.

 

I dont.

 

They obviously mean duty as in something that is right to do and must be done (e.g. the duty of a parent). Duty doesn't just mean a legal responsibility.

 

Yes, exactly...

 

Let me put the shoe on the other foot. You say you don't vote because the system is corrupt? Are you doing anything at all to bring change to the system? If you are I applaud that. If you're just sitting back and complaining I can't respect that.

 

Thanks Night Rain and Mike92. That is exactly what I meant. The word duty can refer to moral obligation as well. It isn't limited to legal obligation. I won't go any further into it because that would derail the thread

 

Romney also didn't have the image that people wanted after Bush, though. He was another insanely rich, overly-conservative white guy who was known to screw people over with the way he did business. Obama was a fresh face that said he was basically the Anti-Bush. People were so tired of George W. that attitudes swung all the way to the left.



But the point I initially tried to make is the one the cartoon does better. I mean that any candidate who actually has a chance at winning is already a puppet of other influences. The Super PACS are just there to raise funds once the initial decisions have been made. After that, it's safe to say the contest is pretty much straightforward.

 

Yes I vote , it seems to be something we take for granted. I've been around the world twice.
our country yes has it's problems . But we have been free over 200 years . We are still the best this world has to offer.

 

See, occasionally, I have a brief and ridiculous notion that I might go into politics. Then I recover and remember how much I fucking hate politics. Its nothing but corruption and abuse.

 

Yeah, but Mitt Romney is not very conservative at all; take a look at his record as governor. He just wanted to seem conservative while running for president because that is the only way anyone can get through Republican primaries (Chris Christie is going to have the same issue, but probably worse). He's the same guy that crafted the health care plan Obama supports, he was pro-choice, and he banned assault rifles as Obama also wanted. While governor, he also stood outside a factory and said "factories like these kill people." No chance in hell would a conservative ever do that. He wasn't being called "Moderate Mitt" by Republicans for nothing. As for his business, (the public) saying he screwed people is a little unfair. He killed jobs and created some as the Washington Post's fact checker article pointed out during the campaign. That's capitalism.

Can't say I disagree with anything in your second paragraph. Super PAC's are a big problem.

 

I completely support the right of people not to vote. However I also get the urge to say "do something about it" whenever those who do not vote then mention that they do not vote because of x, y and z. X, y and z may be very important matters, very real, and very off putting but if all you're doing is not voting then you're doing very little to change things. Don't vote due to those reasons, but make those reasons heard. Shout it from the rooftops, have some passion about it. Don't just sit back and avoid the votes, that's how things go tits up as fewer and fewer people who could make a difference in the tides vote and those who do vote tend to be those who prefer the candidates the people who opted not to vote find deplorable.

No one in politics cares about the non-voters, and not voting does not make as much as an impression upon them as people voting for minority parties with a cats chance in hell of actually making it to a position of power. Non-voters are only a press conference concern, providing they still have their band of supporters who will diligently vote for their party then that's all that really matters.