So erroneous that I'd ask for a refund on my tuition. Seriously don't know where to begin.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Protesting your vote
- Thread starter Stubby
- Start date
Stubby
Ask the Chief
Calm down. This is how threads get locked out.
Not to mince words or redefine my original statement, but my opinion is to protest a vote is stupid. If you are a conservative and want to 'punish' the Republicans... it doesn't make sense to support the Democratic Party. If you are a liberal and want to 'punish' the Democratic Party... it doesn't make sense to support the Republican Party.
The reason is that whatever your own party did to "let you down" on some key issue, the other party will do far worse. It's only yourself and your fellow conservatives/liberals that really end up "punished".
If you are an absolute moderate... if you have no stance on any key and controversial issue... then not voting is the right thing to do, as no party really supports your position.
I don't think that you personally, or any one else on this forum is stupid. However, I think that protesting one's party by not voting, or voting for the other party is 'cutting off your nose to spite your face', and that is a stupid act. I would love to challenge a "vote protester" to explain the benefits of not voting.... but I imagine that the topic will probably die out now.
That's my opinion anyway. If you disagree, fine. This is a forum where people are allowed to disagree.
I still contend that this is incorrect because of what I said above...non-participation in our system is tacit agreement and will only breed more of the same....so you won't have a voice or candidate the next year, or the next....squeaky wheel gets the grease.
The Naval War College came by Rice university yesterday. One of the Greek naval officers remarked on the regime change that occured yesterday (the dems taking control of the house - and the policy changes that will come) he remarked on how in most countries regime changes happen by force; blood, and violence. Here they happen by those who have the ability to make change peaceably. He said that his country invented democracy but its never worked anywhere so well as it does here.
I agree.
For the first time in my life since the age of 18, I didn't vote. I feel completely unrepresented. I'm really not sure which party I'm less frustrated with. Historically, I've been aligned with the GOP, and that's how I'm registered...but they've been pretty much ****ing the dog for quite a while, now. I suppose I still detest them slightly less than the Democrats, but I was pulling for the Dems to take the House (although not the Senate), for the reason that I wanted some political deadlock, and I wanted the GOP to get smacked around in hopes of a return to something that I can support.
In addition, that's coming from someone with an acute awareness and interest in politics. 90% of the TV I watch is news/punditry, and I plan to run for office at whatever point I leave the USMC. If I didn't vote, it's no wonder that so many don't.
UHundergrad
New Member
Deadlock
The issue of not voting can't be, I do not believe, summarized to "they don't have a f***ing right to any governmental act". Not voting is in some way a voice. Voter turn out drops. Hardly a voice though. Voting for the lesser of two evils is also not a dumba** move, as Stubby voiced very clearly. The problem is that most Americans would rather the winner take all voting effect removed and replaced with a proportionate system of representation. Something like Italy has, where they also have 10 plus parties. But good ol' Madison and Hamilton didn't want the people to decide everything. The government was created in a Repulican style because the representatives should take the will and voice of the people, refine it, and then have it appropriately channeled through government. Like it or not, it's business as usual. Even though the government has changed radically, you absolutely have to realize that "piece of paper" called our constitution is the guideline for our government. In it allows for changes to be made to the election process in the proper fasion, and none have been sucessful in removing the electoral college (Which is a whole different animal I wish someone would bring up).
So essentially, unless you want to change the way politicians win elections, sitting out a vote when you clearly know where you stand on the issues, is pointless (Although not a perfect example for a mid-term influence, since you might not be able to "punish" a party like the duke was referring to). Voting for a 3rd party or independent that clearly has absolutely no chance in winning accomplishes nothing in the terms of actual governmental change. You may achieve your long lost voice, but the other people voting straight ticket Republican or Democrat have almost out-dumbassed you. They have the voice now, and they're happy you sat this one out.
Although in the end framer's intent sorta trumps it all.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
I guess to sum it up, "If you're not going to be a voice of change. . . ."
Now, I have Friday morning PT to attend in fourty minutes. Thank you insomnia.
The issue of not voting can't be, I do not believe, summarized to "they don't have a f***ing right to any governmental act". Not voting is in some way a voice. Voter turn out drops. Hardly a voice though. Voting for the lesser of two evils is also not a dumba** move, as Stubby voiced very clearly. The problem is that most Americans would rather the winner take all voting effect removed and replaced with a proportionate system of representation. Something like Italy has, where they also have 10 plus parties. But good ol' Madison and Hamilton didn't want the people to decide everything. The government was created in a Repulican style because the representatives should take the will and voice of the people, refine it, and then have it appropriately channeled through government. Like it or not, it's business as usual. Even though the government has changed radically, you absolutely have to realize that "piece of paper" called our constitution is the guideline for our government. In it allows for changes to be made to the election process in the proper fasion, and none have been sucessful in removing the electoral college (Which is a whole different animal I wish someone would bring up).
So essentially, unless you want to change the way politicians win elections, sitting out a vote when you clearly know where you stand on the issues, is pointless (Although not a perfect example for a mid-term influence, since you might not be able to "punish" a party like the duke was referring to). Voting for a 3rd party or independent that clearly has absolutely no chance in winning accomplishes nothing in the terms of actual governmental change. You may achieve your long lost voice, but the other people voting straight ticket Republican or Democrat have almost out-dumbassed you. They have the voice now, and they're happy you sat this one out.
Although in the end framer's intent sorta trumps it all.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
I guess to sum it up, "If you're not going to be a voice of change. . . ."
Now, I have Friday morning PT to attend in fourty minutes. Thank you insomnia.
No it is not. In fact, it's pointless for me to vote. I don't want the Democrats or the Republicans to win, but they will in fact win, so my vote means nothing. I really do not give a **** who wins the elections anymore. They are just two different shades of bad, and neither shade is worse than the other, just different.
Exactly, so why bother to vote?
Actually, it doesn't matter to the Dems or Repubs if I don't vote because voting and not voting have the same outcome for someone who votes third party: nothing.
Stubby
Ask the Chief
You know, when I started this topic I really thought that there was really only two responsible choices on election day: Vote Republican or Vote Democrat. I came to this conclusion through frustration over conservatives who felt betrayed by the Republican party and so refused to support them this election. The obvious result of this decision would be indirect support for the Democratic party. Support for the Democratic party is support for liberal agenda, and so is counter productive to those who abandoned the Republicans because they were not living up to conservative ideals.
After reading the posts here however, I believe I have to amend my original statement. Earlier I said,
"If you are an absolute moderate... if you have no stance on any key and controversial issue... then not voting is the right thing to do, as no party really supports your position."
A few of you have disagreed with my statement....
Good! I stand by the comment, but at the same time I really find it hard to believe that anyone would have absolutely no stance on any key issue. Global terrorism, the economy, taxes, abortion, Supreme Court Justices, the Federal deficit, global warming, medical coverage, equal rights... the list goes on... Maybe you really don't care about one or two of these issues, but can you really say that you have absolutely no stance on any of them? If you can, then no; You should not vote, because you are most likely completely uninformed.
Carno stated "the Repubs now support things that I simply cannot abide." Again, I can respect that. So is the only option to boycott the election? (This is where I change my initial stance.)
This is where "third party" comes in. Every party has a stance on some key issue. Many conservatives feel they are better represented by the Libertarians who are for fiscal conservatism. I guess some granola eating tree hugging liberals may think they are better represented by the Green party who would focus more forcefully on the environment.
The message sent by not voting is an ambiguous one. Maybe you're apathetic, maybe you're disenchanted, maybe you never vote, maybe you had a flat tire on the way to the polls... obviously, a poor showing at the polls is a compilation of all these excuses and more.
So what is the message if you vote for a third party? The message is that the major parties are losing voters to a third party whom those voters believe better represents their interest. That's a real wake up call.
After reading the posts here however, I believe I have to amend my original statement. Earlier I said,
"If you are an absolute moderate... if you have no stance on any key and controversial issue... then not voting is the right thing to do, as no party really supports your position."
A few of you have disagreed with my statement....
Good! I stand by the comment, but at the same time I really find it hard to believe that anyone would have absolutely no stance on any key issue. Global terrorism, the economy, taxes, abortion, Supreme Court Justices, the Federal deficit, global warming, medical coverage, equal rights... the list goes on... Maybe you really don't care about one or two of these issues, but can you really say that you have absolutely no stance on any of them? If you can, then no; You should not vote, because you are most likely completely uninformed.
Carno stated "the Repubs now support things that I simply cannot abide." Again, I can respect that. So is the only option to boycott the election? (This is where I change my initial stance.)
This is where "third party" comes in. Every party has a stance on some key issue. Many conservatives feel they are better represented by the Libertarians who are for fiscal conservatism. I guess some granola eating tree hugging liberals may think they are better represented by the Green party who would focus more forcefully on the environment.
No. It sends a much clearer message than not voting. Don't get me wrong, you are correct that as of now, a third party pretty much has a snowball's chance in hell of getting any real power.... and you're going to have to live with the party that does have the majority... but an informed vote is never pointless. If the intent is to "send a message", then make it a clear one.
The message sent by not voting is an ambiguous one. Maybe you're apathetic, maybe you're disenchanted, maybe you never vote, maybe you had a flat tire on the way to the polls... obviously, a poor showing at the polls is a compilation of all these excuses and more.
So what is the message if you vote for a third party? The message is that the major parties are losing voters to a third party whom those voters believe better represents their interest. That's a real wake up call.
I predict that if the Democrats and Republicans take the opportunity to play political games and obstruct each other at every turn now, there is a very real opportunity for a third party, or even a fourth one to grab a foothold in the body politic. I get the sense lately that the American public, though sharply divided, is also fed up with politics as usual from both sides of the aisle. I really don't see a Democratic mandate with this election, just a PO'ed voting public. I'm a firm believer that a more ideal form of government would be our Constitution but a more European mix of many parties. I believe it would force cooperation and compromise to the expense of obstructionism.
Then again, if there are two clowns already in the ring, you can jump in the middle and start reciting Shakespeare, but to the audience you're just the third clown.
If that ever happens (and I'm inclined to think that it won't), it will be a very gradual process and not due to voter dissatisfaction over an election cycle or three. Here's why: The power structure in Congress is structured around the two parties, so other 3rd parties would have to elect enough members to outweigh either of the existing poles of power. There's no advantage in either of the existing parties to form coalitions or cooperate with a third party because that just results in a decrease in their own power. So, this sets up a kind of catch-22. A 3rd party needs a certain critical mass in order to have its legislation/policies get pushed through the Congress. In order to attain that critical mass, they need to produce results for their constituents. See where I'm going with this? The only thing a 3rd party does (as with Perot in the 90s) is act as a spoiler - usually for the party that it's most like. The result is getting the worst of the three choices in office (Clinton).
Bottom line: 3rd parties are a pipe dream.
Brett
Agreed, it would be a gradual process. Note I said "foothold." Nothing's going to pop up overnight, and the odds are indeed heavily stacked against a third or fourth party getting into power, which is a pity. Part of the problem is that most of them (Greens, Libertarians with a capital L, Socialists) are even more extreme than the Dems/Repubs. But even if things take decades to change, that doesn't mean they're unchangeable. Nothing in the Constitution mandates a two-party system; that's just the way things evolved here.
The problem we run into now is that the politicos and the media seem hellbent on dividing us into red and blue, conservative and liberal, etc. etc. But people don't think that way. Very few people (thank God) agree totally with either party's platform. And I think it's getting to the point where people are voting for the guy they hate the least instead of the one they support. And anytime that happens is a good opportunity for the centrist who happens to support something other than the party lines which is more congruent to the thinking of a majority or plurality of Americans.
Unlikely? Yup. But I wouldn't call it a total pipe dream. Maybe the next thing to one.
The problem we run into now is that the politicos and the media seem hellbent on dividing us into red and blue, conservative and liberal, etc. etc. But people don't think that way. Very few people (thank God) agree totally with either party's platform. And I think it's getting to the point where people are voting for the guy they hate the least instead of the one they support. And anytime that happens is a good opportunity for the centrist who happens to support something other than the party lines which is more congruent to the thinking of a majority or plurality of Americans.
Unlikely? Yup. But I wouldn't call it a total pipe dream. Maybe the next thing to one.
That's the opinion that I have had also. Any third party is most alike to the Democrats, so they only act as a foil to the Repubs by taking away votes from the Dems. I really don't care if the Repubs or the Dems win, so I might as well not vote at all.
However, as Stubby said, voting for a third party may send a better message than not voting at all. I don't know... I suppose I may end up voting on any election days... I guess it will depend on my mood on that particular day.