Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Back in 2004 I posted some harsh words about voting. This being another election year, I decided I'd repeat myself.
Posted by at
Labels:

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't take you less seriously if you don't vote -- that's your choice and I respect it. But if you complain about the government then I'll ignore it. And don't kid yourself, not voting always helps one of the candidates.

7:25 AM
Katie said...

Like anonymous said, it's your choice not to vote, but that's one of the reasons I don't read your political posts. If you don't vote, don't complain about the state of things when they go to shit.

Oh wait, they already have. Never mind.

8:13 AM
platts42 said...

I have to disagree with katie on this one. Voting is an abstraction, it is a process, not an end to itself.

It's like when you start to say something, then stop and your friend says, "no you started it, now you have to finish it." Says who, how is this a valid statement? It's the same with voting.

Now consider we live in a time where voting means picking the lesser of two evils in your belief system. Why do you HAVE to pick someone you don't agree with? You don't, and it's bullshit to get on a high horse and claim that it's a right and a privilege to pick someone who's position is not yours.

Consequently, not voting is still voting but with your conscience instead of a paper trail. Like the RUSH's Freewill: If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

As a result of, and in relation to the the abstraction of voting, it is fully within anyone's right who doesn't vote to say whatever the fuck they want about what is essentially a rigged game, and it has fallen upon the reader to invalidate the speaker's voice based on that abstraction. So, in this case I turn it back to both as being censors who disenfranchise Mac's right to Free Speech.

non sequitur...penis

9:03 AM
Katie said...

I've been duly shamed. You're right of course, Cap'n...though I was also trying to be snarky, but that must not have translated well.

9:41 AM
Anonymous said...

The memes of; "they're all the same anyway" or "your vote doesn't count" are probably the most dangerous of our time. This is precisely why we've had to endure 8 years of hell and unbridled ignorance. The rise of the "Handmaidens Tale" state.

I'll always respect you Mac but not voting this time around is completely irresponsible. Sorry but by not voting you are effectively giving more power to the fundamentalist freaks, hellbent on self fulfilling Armageddon prophecy.

But hey, it's your choice ;)

-Denny

1:44 PM
Anonymous said...

Your vote is more important than ever. You live in a state that If Obama wins, he wins the election. The race in MO is very close.
The old Ralph Nader line of how the dems and republicans are the same does not wash when looking at the choice of Bush and Gore in 2000 that set us on a path of environmental, political, and economic hell. Bush won with a handful of votes in Florida. Obama can win with a handful of votes in MO.


Stan

2:38 PM
Mac said...

"Hope" and "change" are perhaps the last words that come to mind when I listen to Obama. I see yet another probable sociopath who thinks he knows what's best for me.

12:13 AM
Anonymous said...

Uh...elections in the US are indirect. Candidates concentrate on the states with the most electors; the elections aren't about winning the popular vote on a national scale. The importance of your vote is relative to how many electors your state happens to have. Candidates are going to focus primarily on states like TX (34 electors),FL (27 electors),IL (21 electors),OH (20 electors),NY (31 electors),PA (21 electors) and CA (55 electors). The candidate with the majority of electoral votes wins. Let me put it another way: states with a denser population and with more people voting are not as significant for the outcome as sparsely populated states with few people voting, so long as the latter have more electors assigned to them. For the sake of argument, let's say there's just 5 people living out in CA. How those 5 people vote is more important to the outcome than how a few million people vote in, say, VT (VT only 3 electors). So, technically, a candidate can win the popular vote and yet lose the election.

There's your 'democratic' system, folks. If you're so concerned about who's going to be the next president, move to CA and vote there.

Ken Y.

12:50 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)