If so, why? If not, why not?
Poll: Do you vote?
-
jasoninmississippi
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:17 am
@gibberade
As I've said in a previous post, the most important reason to choose even one of the lesser of two (or more) evils, i.e. crappy candidates, is because he or she will choose the least problematic judges. Federal judges serve for life. If a wingnut gets appointed, it can be doing damage fifty years later. I don't know if that's true in Canada, but you also share a common law system and judges have a huge impact on that through the precedent value of their case decisions.
Since I turned 18, I have missed only one by-election that determined only local candidates and issues. I regret that a bit, but at least it didn't concern anyone who could appoint a wingnut judge.
As I've said in a previous post, the most important reason to choose even one of the lesser of two (or more) evils, i.e. crappy candidates, is because he or she will choose the least problematic judges. Federal judges serve for life. If a wingnut gets appointed, it can be doing damage fifty years later. I don't know if that's true in Canada, but you also share a common law system and judges have a huge impact on that through the precedent value of their case decisions.
Since I turned 18, I have missed only one by-election that determined only local candidates and issues. I regret that a bit, but at least it didn't concern anyone who could appoint a wingnut judge.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
Now that election day is over (for the most part), here's my answer: I turned 18 a few weeks ago, so I could have voted today, but I didn't, and I don't think I will in the future.
People more eloquent than I have written an explanation here: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/33587/w ... vote-ever/
excerpt:
"Do not let others saddle you with guilt for exercising your right of refusal. Instead of voting, why not take a more direct path of action in your community by volunteering your time by helping a literacy organization, for instance. Teach creative writing so a generation will rise who can speak truth to power. Educate others about the real stories behind history that our education system cannot and will not (by government sanction) teach. Volunteer your time at a food pantry. Work for lower rent in your neighborhood, like James Sullivan would have you do. Organize with others to combat racial or other social injustices in your neighborhood."
People more eloquent than I have written an explanation here: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/33587/w ... vote-ever/
excerpt:
"Do not let others saddle you with guilt for exercising your right of refusal. Instead of voting, why not take a more direct path of action in your community by volunteering your time by helping a literacy organization, for instance. Teach creative writing so a generation will rise who can speak truth to power. Educate others about the real stories behind history that our education system cannot and will not (by government sanction) teach. Volunteer your time at a food pantry. Work for lower rent in your neighborhood, like James Sullivan would have you do. Organize with others to combat racial or other social injustices in your neighborhood."
Yes i voted. It takes very little time to vote especially if you do it absentee.
The link you posted wasn't very convincing and just seemed like needless whining (or grandstanding to get web traffic). I consider voting to be both an obligation and a priveledge. No the system isn't perfect but not voting isn't going to make it any better. And voting doesn't prevent you from being a good citizen in any of the other ways commented in the article.
The link you posted wasn't very convincing and just seemed like needless whining (or grandstanding to get web traffic). I consider voting to be both an obligation and a priveledge. No the system isn't perfect but not voting isn't going to make it any better. And voting doesn't prevent you from being a good citizen in any of the other ways commented in the article.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
"Yes, even if it doesn't matter, I still want my voice heard."
In the past few elections, there have been some extremely close decisions. Coupled with the winner-take-all design, this means that every vote is important. For example, Florida in 2000 was decided by 537 votes and new mexico by 366 votes (see http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm ).
In the past few elections, there have been some extremely close decisions. Coupled with the winner-take-all design, this means that every vote is important. For example, Florida in 2000 was decided by 537 votes and new mexico by 366 votes (see http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm ).
-
AnneBentham
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:15 am
I not only vote, I started running a local polling place as well.
Not voting does not harm the system. Refusing to do a tiny amount of good just because it isn't solving all problems is a ridiculous excuse. There is no reason a person couldn't be actively involved in the community AND vote. If you don't vote for someone to represent you, someone will still represent you - it just may be someone you like even less.
More and more places are adopting alternative voting systems, such as ranked choice voting, just instituted in my home town (Oakland) which allows you to vote your conscious AND vote for the lesser of two evils. How did a system as entrenched as primary followed by winner-take-all general elections get charged? Yep, the voters decided to put it in place. And the first time it was put to the test, it worked - the corrupt career politician with a massive budget was beaten by a low-budget progressive by the 2nd place votes.
No, one vote doesn't count. Just like one person driving one car doesn't create air pollution or deplete oil. But elections are decided by a whole lot of individuals. That's what society is. A lot of individuals.
On the other hand, all of you who don't vote make my vote count that much more, so, thats ok, don't bother.
Not voting does not harm the system. Refusing to do a tiny amount of good just because it isn't solving all problems is a ridiculous excuse. There is no reason a person couldn't be actively involved in the community AND vote. If you don't vote for someone to represent you, someone will still represent you - it just may be someone you like even less.
More and more places are adopting alternative voting systems, such as ranked choice voting, just instituted in my home town (Oakland) which allows you to vote your conscious AND vote for the lesser of two evils. How did a system as entrenched as primary followed by winner-take-all general elections get charged? Yep, the voters decided to put it in place. And the first time it was put to the test, it worked - the corrupt career politician with a massive budget was beaten by a low-budget progressive by the 2nd place votes.
No, one vote doesn't count. Just like one person driving one car doesn't create air pollution or deplete oil. But elections are decided by a whole lot of individuals. That's what society is. A lot of individuals.
On the other hand, all of you who don't vote make my vote count that much more, so, thats ok, don't bother.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
" How does voting do a tiny amount of good? "
Regardless of what they say, R's and D's do pretty much the same thing when they are elected. The controversial issues that politicians use to define themselves and generate excitement seldom if ever get voted into law. From that perspective, it is useless to vote.
However, you can impose term limits on them by always voting against the incumbent regardless of party. This would actually work if a large chunk of non voters did this. I think government would then be substantially better.
Regardless of what they say, R's and D's do pretty much the same thing when they are elected. The controversial issues that politicians use to define themselves and generate excitement seldom if ever get voted into law. From that perspective, it is useless to vote.
However, you can impose term limits on them by always voting against the incumbent regardless of party. This would actually work if a large chunk of non voters did this. I think government would then be substantially better.