Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only motivator to vote, from an objective standpoint, is to ensure that such a right remains secure. In practice however, the exercise is illusory at best.
A lot of people think the polls are rigged and our vote doesn't matter and others think that we make a difference voting. I don't vote not because I don't think Ill make a difference but because im just flat out lazy.
Well, in my most recent case, I believe that my vote was pointless - it was concerning some local elections. The two endorsed Democrats won by a 3-1 margin or greater against independents (most of whom were Democrats who had fallen out of favor of the party machine) and the Republicans didn't even bother to run candidates. All of the tax hikes that are voted on often pass by 3-1 margins or greater...
So I stopped wasting my time and gas to drive to the polling station. Instead, I'm voting with my feet as soon as my lease is up.
Absolutely, and when you don't vote you don't have the right to complain about ANYTHING.
By that logic if someone thought both Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000, or Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 were terrible options, then they would have to vote for one of them or a third party candidate even if they disagree with them, or lose their privilege and constitutional right to complain. If your answer is because each belongs to a party that has a different agenda, what if the voter totally disagrees with the agenda of each and believes both parties, and the politicians running, have been corrupted by big money and are both horrible choices?
That's the type of thinking that gave us the Iraq War; the Affordable Care Act; policy on the handling of illegal and legal immigration; and in the not to distant future the Trans-Pacific Partnership that is going to steal even more of our liberty with an international commission our citizens will be bound by, along with having other major and very serious, negative consequences.
I would point out that it's just the opposite of what you are saying. Those who have pulled the lever for the imbeciles to help elect them are the ones who shouldn't complain. It's time all of us open our eyes and look for alternative political parties. Personally, I haven't found one worthy yet.
And not everyone is capable of running for office and attracting votes, and if they know that why would they attempt it wasting their time and money? And if they don't have money to run, or if they can't get on the ballot due to strict ballot access laws in their state, like my own here in Ohio, their hands are tied even if they want to run.
If someone doesn't care enough to vote then I don't want them to vote. Their vote would likely be quite uneducated. Even more so than those who vote.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJB
if someone thought both Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000, or Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 were terrible options
They were terrible options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eok
The big fallacy in libertarian philosophy is that it's based on the theory that people can work together in peace and not infringe on each other's rights.
We know that everybody can, but some won't. That is why we have no qualms about defending ourselves against anyone who would infringe upon our rights.
I have always been under the impression that the majority vote determined the election results until a guy in a Black robe said that we were WRONG and thus nullified the results and that was my LAST TIME voting.
Why bother if a few people sitting on some bench can over ride or change what a mass number of people voted for.
An election has a POOR turnout and some person claims to be the winner but in my book they are a LOOSER due to the poor turnout that voted for him/her since the majority simply had NO confidence and stayed away from the voting booths.
An election has a POOR turnout and some person claims to be the winner but in my book they are a LOOSER due to the poor turnout that voted for him/her since the majority simply had NO confidence and stayed away from the voting booths.
They are a LOOSER?
Yet your supposed winner is on the side of things that have degraded our education system to the point that would be educated adults don't even know the correct word to use in a sentence..
I did use the Correct word based upon the corruption as they are "LOOSE" when it comes down to Integrity in Washington DC and a few other places in the current News.
Gore isn't LOOSE? Like scamming millions of dollars for carbon credits...yeah like giving money to a billionaire to compensate for pollution does what exactly for the environment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
