mikeinsjc
spending too much on rocks
Member since June 2010
Posts: 329
|
Post by mikeinsjc on Oct 12, 2015 18:31:11 GMT -5
I don't think I'm going to vote anymore. I'm not on a crusade here to get anyone else into my camp. I just wanted to pass my reasons by you and see what you think. I am open to changing my mind on this. Here's some of my reasons so far; 1. I Live in CA. Nobody I vote for ever gets elected anyway, and any ballot initiatives that I favor that do get passed get overturned by the courts.
2. Statistically, my vote doesn't count, as no major election has ever been decided by one vote. For a great analysis of this position, read the book "Freakonomics".
3. I totally disagree with the 'make sure you vote" mentality. This says to me "It doesn't matter who you vote for, or how much you understand the issues, just vote."
4. The older I get, the less I care about political issues. I should step aside, and let the passionate and informed voter take my place. If it was legal to sell my vote, I might.
5. Politics is a dirty game, and I feel sullied and manipulated and lied to in order to further someones political career.
6. A vote cast for anyone not in one of the two major parties is an absolutely wasted vote. It may make one feel good, but you should have stayed home and watched Cheers reruns.
7. I don't believe voting is some patriotic obligation.
8. Someone once said "Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it matters". Or something like that.
I would appreciate your thoughts. I'm not interested in any rant about a particular party or politician- just your thoughts about the morality (or immorality) of the exercise itself.
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Oct 12, 2015 18:40:17 GMT -5
well Mike and can see your points but I still think it fundamentally the right thing to do we can’t abdicate on the idea of democracy even if a lot it appears to be a sham I’d rather vote and be responsible for being wrong then just be wronged
mostly
|
|
droseraguy
Cave Dweller
Member since April 2012
Posts: 426
|
Post by droseraguy on Oct 12, 2015 20:00:19 GMT -5
I hope that is what they count on. The populace is growing both disenchanted and more prone to get out there and vote all the same. We live in Illinois where at least the crooks try to hide what they do unlike Commifornia where they stick it to you straight out and flaunt how all encompassing and compasionate they are. They being BOTH sides. Does my vote count ? Probably not but at least .... at least.... cause if I didn't then the Chicago machine wouldn't be able to look at all those downstate counties and think twice. Just let me have my delusions that's about all I have left.
|
|
|
Post by orrum on Oct 12, 2015 20:30:53 GMT -5
I vote but my method is to not vote for anyone in office because y hey are obviously not getting their job done!
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Oct 12, 2015 20:35:27 GMT -5
If nobody voted, Obama would stay in office. Where would that get us ? Another 18 trillion in debt ? Despised by even more of the world ? Over run by any looney bunch of terrorists that came along, because our ruller would welcome them & offer them freebies ?
One vote by itself may not make a difference, but millions of those "one votes" can make a huge difference in our future & the future of our country.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Oct 12, 2015 20:39:53 GMT -5
*S* You've just detailed one of the major reasons I left Commiefornia for Texas. My vote definitely counts here! Also immigration, taxes, gun control, traffic , air pollution, crowding( jackass overpopulation) etc etc as just a few more. Commiefornia being a winner take all electoral vote state, our votes did not count. It's also very gerrymandered and full of folks that have zero skin in the game and sell their votes for freebies. What we here in Texas would say about our capitol of Austin ( Commiefornia in Texas in the river) applies to Commiefornia. Full of greenies, freeloaders, ex hippies, and lefty weirdos. Most of rural Commiefornia ain't that way but the cities, wow! That is the state where folks are so retarded they elected Governor Moonbeam again and have been electing those crazy ass fembots Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein for years and years. Brown's latest stroke of genius is automatic voter registration when you get a drivers license and of course, illegals can get a drivers license in Commiefornia. I was born there but the state is now totally FUBAR. Couldn't wait to get out of there and move to America!
I do however believe voting is a duty of every citizen even if it don't break your way. I figure there's always a chance the insanity will stop eventually. Got to admit when the totally incompetent Obaminator was re elected, I began to doubt the intelligence of slightly over half the country who turned out to be total motards. I also hate we so often have to choose between the lesser of two bad choices. It sucks but the game is rigged.....Mel
|
|
mikeinsjc
spending too much on rocks
Member since June 2010
Posts: 329
|
Post by mikeinsjc on Oct 12, 2015 21:09:37 GMT -5
There are 17.7 million registered voters in CA. They roughly break 4-3-3 dems/repubs/independents. Let's say all but ten voters decide they've had enough of the voting process for whatever reasons and stay home. In theory (in THEORY, mind you), the ten votes would still break 4-3-3, and the election results would remain unchanged. The statistics don't apply to such a small sample size of ten voters, but it WOULD work if say 15 million of those voters stayed home. When I say the individual vote doesn't count, that's what I mean.
I'm still wondering about the morality of the process. Let's take it to the extreme and say you had only a choice of two candidates; one was a Satan-worshipping drug-dealing pimp, and the other was a serial killer and pedophile. Would you still feel you needed to vote? I get it that your vote is a moral compromise. Just how much should you compromise though?
|
|
peachfront
fully equipped rock polisher
Stones have begun to speak, because an ear is there to hear them.
Member since August 2010
Posts: 1,745
|
Post by peachfront on Oct 12, 2015 21:25:17 GMT -5
If you don't care about the issues, you're not educated about the issues, and you feel strongly that you do more harm than good by voting, OK, it's fine to stay home. However, once you talk about selling your vote to whoever is the most "passionate" -- in practice, whoever shouts the loudest -- you have crossed a line in my humble opinion. As far as situations where you have a choice between a Satan worshipper and a serial killer, there have been many times in my state or parish where the only people running are in my opinion involved in serious wrong-doing that probably does destroy human life and futures. In those situations, I don't vote for any of them. This happens because of the widespread gerrymandering in American politics, which needs to be reformed so that bad people of one party or another can't seize total control of offices and public funds. Where you have one party rule, you will ALWAYS have corruption-- that's just human nature. But until this is corrected, I do understand your anger at being asked to choose between people who are all knowingly doing real harm for a dollar. However, at least in my area, our voting machines are set up so you can skip voting on the measures or positions where there is no good choice. You can still vote on those measures/positions where you might make a difference. Have you considered that? Surely, EVERY public office isn't held by an alcoholic abuser of public trust -- just most of them when it comes to local politics!
|
|
quartz
Cave Dweller
breakin' rocks in the hot sun
Member since February 2010
Posts: 3,352
|
Post by quartz on Oct 12, 2015 22:58:24 GMT -5
My personal policy is to write in "none of the above" in any people race where I don't like any of them. EVERY write-in vote is recorded and tallied. On occasion, I have voted for a deserving individual, generally on the local level. My wife says what would happen if none won. Make 'em start over w/all new candidates, maybe get worthwhile ones. Any issue in this area that says more money I vote against due to the obvious observable waste and inefficiency.
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Oct 17, 2015 11:59:20 GMT -5
Mike
I totally agree with you and feel you are doing the right thing.
All of your points are valid...well mostly all, check on 1, 2 3 I don't agree with number 4 . votes should not be bought or sold. as for the first part about passionate and informed voters... just take in the comments of the passionate and informed voters on this and other websites and see if that changes your mind.
Number five is a number of half truths and half lies. Many voters expect politicians to have the same views they have and punish them for being honest when they dont agree. You cannot be all things to all people but dont be surprised when we punish our politicians for voting their conscience in issues that are not usually black and white but full of grey areas or is it really gray areas
agree with 6 and 7 but 8 is a little too cute to be taken seriously...What I mean is it is like the political cartoons people love to repost as if they have found some homey wisdom
Charlie
|
|
mikeinsjc
spending too much on rocks
Member since June 2010
Posts: 329
|
Post by mikeinsjc on Oct 17, 2015 18:47:23 GMT -5
The bit about selling my vote was a bit tongue-in-cheek. While it is obviously illegal to stand outside a polling place with a "My vote is for sale" sign, in reality that is how big elections are won-through buying votes. Otherwise, why the incessant fund-raising and emphasis on campaign contributions? Money/advertising influences how people think. I would like to see all political advertising banned, as was done with cigarette advertising.
I am also totally in favor of a basic competency test for voters. The founding fathers had such a test in a way- only property owners could vote. I doubt they were overtly trying to exclude the masses. Someone who owns property understands some basic economics, taxes, financial responsibility, etc. Maybe voting should be more like driving a car- a privilege rather than a right.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Oct 18, 2015 1:54:51 GMT -5
The social welfare system as it currently exists is pure vote buying.
|
|
peachfront
fully equipped rock polisher
Stones have begun to speak, because an ear is there to hear them.
Member since August 2010
Posts: 1,745
|
Post by peachfront on Oct 18, 2015 18:13:36 GMT -5
The bit about selling my vote was a bit tongue-in-cheek. While it is obviously illegal to stand outside a polling place with a "My vote is for sale" sign, in reality that is how big elections are won-through buying votes. Otherwise, why the incessant fund-raising and emphasis on campaign contributions? Money/advertising influences how people think. I would like to see all political advertising banned, as was done with cigarette advertising. I am also totally in favor of a basic competency test for voters. The founding fathers had such a test in a way- only property owners could vote. I doubt they were overtly trying to exclude the masses. Someone who owns property understands some basic economics, taxes, financial responsibility, etc. Maybe voting should be more like driving a car- a privilege rather than a right. The poor already don't vote. Check out the demographics. If voting becomes a privilege, it is very difficult to see why the rich would continue to allow middle class people to vote. Voting is a right working people have fought and sometimes died for over centuries-- and for a reason. Most of the time, the powerful do go unchecked. Without the vote, there would be nothing now for the middle class- no social security, no medicare, nothing! Why would they let us keep what we have earned by working when they want to have $10 million weddings for their daughters? We already see evil men buying drug companies and pricing the cost of life-saving drugs out of reach of middle-class people-- drugs that we all paid taxes and contributed to donations for the research & development. This is outright extortion and murder if a middle-class person denied a person a life-saving drug but if a rich man does it somehow it's legal? We don't need to restrict voting even more. We need to make our vote count by getting rid of the gerrymandering that allows the very rich to impose one-party control on entire towns and districts. As for driving, making it a privilege rather than a right can be a very effective way to keep a family in poverty for generations, since in many areas nobody is going to hire someone who must rely on uncertain public transportation to get to their work. It is not a privilege to remove lightly, since not being able to drive steals an individual's independence and, often, an entire family's ability to earn a decent living. That is my opinion only of course but that's what I think...
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on Oct 20, 2015 13:50:39 GMT -5
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.
|
|
mikeinsjc
spending too much on rocks
Member since June 2010
Posts: 329
|
Post by mikeinsjc on Oct 20, 2015 15:14:46 GMT -5
The lines between right and privilege may blur in some areas, but let's simplify it by saying a right is something conferred upon you by your station in life. Like citizenship,or birthright. A privilege might be viewed as something you qualify for. Driving a car is allowed only after certain qualifications are met; age, written test, vision test, behind-the-wheel test. Would you want that to change,allowing any doofus behind the wheel? When you get down to it, most activities in life require demonstrating some level of competency in order to perform.
Allowing people who lack a rudimentary understanding of how the system works to vote (or serve on a jury)to me is like having the rank-and-file soldier vote on the best military strategy.
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Oct 20, 2015 15:38:55 GMT -5
"Allowing people who lack a rudimentary understanding of how the system works to vote (or serve on a jury)to me is like having the rank-and-file soldier vote on the best military strategy."
LOL, I've known more than a few military officers who didn't have sense enough to wipe their butts too. But any rank - and - file soldier who has seen combat understands strategy.
It boils down to common sense. I've known a few hill people with more common sense than some college graduates with fancy degrees. Often life experience outweighs all of the fancy degrees in the world.
|
|
peachfront
fully equipped rock polisher
Stones have begun to speak, because an ear is there to hear them.
Member since August 2010
Posts: 1,745
|
Post by peachfront on Oct 20, 2015 23:01:52 GMT -5
The lines between right and privilege may blur in some areas, but let's simplify it by saying a right is something conferred upon you by your station in life. Like citizenship,or birthright. A privilege might be viewed as something you qualify for. Driving a car is allowed only after certain qualifications are met; age, written test, vision test, behind-the-wheel test. Would you want that to change,allowing any doofus behind the wheel? When you get down to it, most activities in life require demonstrating some level of competency in order to perform. Allowing people who lack a rudimentary understanding of how the system works to vote (or serve on a jury)to me is like having the rank-and-file soldier vote on the best military strategy. See here's the thing... We do allow (almost) any doofus behind the wheel because large country + lack of public transportation means that almost nobody can be a useful citizen who contributes to society if they can't drive. They become a nuisance to everybody around them, and it's too expensive for society. Hence that's why the bar for getting a driver's license is so low. And I don't think that's necessarily wrong, even though I do get irritated at the idiots out on the highway. Until we have another way for people to get where they're going, that's the way it almost has to be. The problem with not allowing people to vote unless they have "rudimentary understanding of how the system works" is that the powerful people will cheat. We know this from Jim Crow. The literacy tests were fixed. They were flat out not giving the same tests to everybody. Nobody's trying to discourage the poor from voting. They're already depressed and don't vote. In these times it's the middle class under attack and it's the middle class who will suddenly fail these tests of "rudimentary understanding." You don't try to eliminate people who are no competition. You worry about the people who are potential rivals who could climb and marry your daughter or compete with your son in the family business. It's just human nature. The people who already have everything want to keep it for themselves. How else to control human nature except to give everyone an equal voice? I'm not saying the system is great but the alternative of having only the aristocrats/property owners able to vote & decide was tried for many thousands of years & it led to nothing but human misery, widespread disease, & general awfulness. Having everybody get the vote (or mostly everybody get the vote) has been around only for a couple hundred years & we already see amazing freedoms happen for more people than ever before. Is this concept perfect? No, it stinks! I freely admit there is still terrible injustice. And I freely admit that sometimes the voters get it wrong. We'll all seen it, and well know we as humans have huge room for improvement. But I don't know where else to start except to get everybody invested in making a better society. The vote is one way to get everybody invested because it gives everyone their little moment to have their little say... If you don't want to vote and you choose not to, that's one thing. But to have somebody else pop up and say, "well I don't agree with you so you must be too stupid to vote..." will lead to incredible abuses.
|
|
|
Post by 1dave on Oct 20, 2015 23:54:22 GMT -5
The lines between right and privilege may blur in some areas, but let's simplify it by saying a right is something conferred upon you by your station in life. Like citizenship,or birthright. A privilege might be viewed as something you qualify for. Driving a car is allowed only after certain qualifications are met; age, written test, vision test, behind-the-wheel test. Would you want that to change,allowing any doofus behind the wheel? When you get down to it, most activities in life require demonstrating some level of competency in order to perform. Allowing people who lack a rudimentary understanding of how the system works to vote (or serve on a jury)to me is like having the rank-and-file soldier vote on the best military strategy. Some of those "rank and file soldiers" are a LOT smarter than the generals.
|
|
mikeinsjc
spending too much on rocks
Member since June 2010
Posts: 329
|
Post by mikeinsjc on Apr 11, 2016 23:34:36 GMT -5
I had to dig back a bit to find this topic I had started back in October, before the primaries got underway.
With the Repubs shutting out the voters in Colorado, I think I found another point I could add to my list.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 0:00:54 GMT -5
I had to dig back a bit to find this topic I had started back in October, before the primaries got underway. With the Repubs shutting out the voters in Colorado, I think I found another point I could add to my list. Shutting out voters?? Do tell.
|
|