| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Indigo Moon Man" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2004 02:42:17 AM |
| Object: |
My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it state that my
freedom of speech is in any way dependant upon whether or not I vote in any
election. Therefore, as an American citizen, I have just as much right to
complain as anyone else, regardless of whether or not I vote. The fact is
that there is no one in this election that I want to vote for and I refuse
to give my vote to either party under the guise of picking the lesser of two
evils. I want a real choice before I will cast my vote again. And I do not
subscribe to the theory that my not voting either helps or hurts either
candidate.
Besides, it's not like I do not participate in the democratic process. I
write emails to senators and congressmen all the time and I express my
opinion at places like vote.com where they send email to the interested
party regarding every vote I make. I also sign petitions on issues that I
support or oppose as the case may be. So it's not like I'm doing nothing.
It's just that my vote is too precious to me to waste on a candidate that I
do not support.
--
A Voice in the Wilderness:
http://avoice.netfirms.com
.
|
|
| User: "Alistaire" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
30 Jun 2004 10:47:01 AM |
|
|
"Indigo Moon Man" <indigomoonman@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<2kf96pF1jmrhU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it state that my
freedom of speech is in any way dependant upon whether or not I vote in any
election.
Oh pish! There are plenty of people who have no idea what is said in
the consitution who will eagerly tell you otherwise!
Therefore, as an American citizen, I have just as much right to
complain as anyone else, regardless of whether or not I vote. The fact is
that there is no one in this election that I want to vote for and I refuse
to give my vote to either party under the guise of picking the lesser of two
evils. I want a real choice before I will cast my vote again. And I do not
subscribe to the theory that my not voting either helps or hurts either
candidate.
My theory is that if the "two" parties see an ever increasing
percentage of votes going to 3rd parties, they might realize that
there's a problem with the "two" parties.
But then I am young and dumb.
Besides, it's not like I do not participate in the democratic process. I
write emails to senators and congressmen all the time and I express my
opinion at places like vote.com where they send email to the interested
party regarding every vote I make.
Personally, I think you are doing MORE for the democratic process than
people who simply vote once a year (or worse yet, the ones who only
vote once every four years, as many tend to do.)
I also sign petitions on issues that I
support or oppose as the case may be.
You are a trusting one! I never sign petitions. I always figure it is
some scam artist trying to get names and SSNs.
So it's not like I'm doing nothing.
It's just that my vote is too precious to me to waste on a candidate that I
do not support.
I think your complaint is actually addressing a bigger issue: people
do not like to hear negativity of any kind. I collect action figures
(I am such a loser) and it is often difficult to ever complain about a
product, because you will invariably receive dismissive responses like
"why don't you do better" or "stop whining already" whereas gushing,
poorly thought out praise is met with endless tolerance. Just as the
non-sequitur "why don't you do better" is used by the thoughtless to
silence dissension among action figure collectors, "if you didn't
vote, you have no right to complain" is used by the politically minded
to put down opinions they disagree with without having to formulate an
actual response to valid criticism.
At any rate, vote Nader (or whatever other 3rd party candidate is on
your ballot.) It is interpreted by many as a "no confidence" vote.
Unfortunately, the ones we most need to interpret it that way do not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Salt" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
01 Jul 2004 09:22:34 AM |
|
|
In article <2kf96pF1jmrhU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"Indigo Moon Man" <indigomoonman@hotpop.com> wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it state that my
freedom of speech is in any way dependant upon whether or not I vote in any
election. Therefore, as an American citizen, I have just as much right to
complain as anyone else, regardless of whether or not I vote. The fact is
that there is no one in this election that I want to vote for and I refuse
to give my vote to either party under the guise of picking the lesser of two
evils. I want a real choice before I will cast my vote again. And I do not
subscribe to the theory that my not voting either helps or hurts either
candidate.
Besides, it's not like I do not participate in the democratic process. I
write emails to senators and congressmen all the time and I express my
opinion at places like vote.com where they send email to the interested
party regarding every vote I make. I also sign petitions on issues that I
support or oppose as the case may be. So it's not like I'm doing nothing.
It's just that my vote is too precious to me to waste on a candidate that I
do not support.
PS - there was a recent issue of US News & World Report [IIRC] about
what went wrong in 2000, and why, four years later, the situation is
worse. As I understand what I read, coastal states are pretty much
guaranteed to vote for one party. So, there's little need to campaign
in a large state already won or lost. The candidates, knowing this,
focus on the midwest, with small populations, where a small swings are
amplified, since the big states effectively cancel each other out.
Then, the congressbots redraw the district lines according to the
demographics to try and assure re-election. I would've thought that New
York was a big swing state, as the New York City/Long Island/Westchester
area is mainly democratic, but upstate is mainly republican. But,
according to US News, New York is a sure win democratic state, because
of the sparseness of the upstate population. Chances are, we won't see
too much of Bush or Kerry here, except for photo-ops with troops.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnM" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
01 Jul 2004 07:13:09 PM |
|
|
Chances are, we won't see
too much of Bush or Kerry here, except for photo-ops with troops.
And the Republican National Convention in August.......
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Salt" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
01 Jul 2004 09:09:02 AM |
|
|
In article <2kf96pF1jmrhU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"Indigo Moon Man" <indigomoonman@hotpop.com> wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it state that my
freedom of speech is in any way dependant upon whether or not I vote in any
election. Therefore, as an American citizen, I have just as much right to
complain as anyone else, regardless of whether or not I vote. The fact is
that there is no one in this election that I want to vote for and I refuse
to give my vote to either party under the guise of picking the lesser of two
evils. I want a real choice before I will cast my vote again. And I do not
subscribe to the theory that my not voting either helps or hurts either
candidate.
Numerically, it puts more choice in fewer hands, but since the choice
[in this case, Bush or Kerry] is made more by the politicos than the
people, I can see your reluctance. I'm assuming that you do vote in
more localized elections, where you, and the candidates have more direct
impact in your community on issues that you feel are important.
Besides, it's not like I do not participate in the democratic process. I
write emails to senators and congressmen all the time and I express my
opinion at places like vote.com where they send email to the interested
party regarding every vote I make. I also sign petitions on issues that I
support or oppose as the case may be. So it's not like I'm doing nothing.
It's just that my vote is too precious to me to waste on a candidate that I
do not support.
I have heard that some countries permit a vote specifically for "none of
the above".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Flashfire" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
30 Jun 2004 03:02:11 AM |
|
|
Indigo Moon Man wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it state that my
freedom of speech is in any way dependant upon whether or not I vote
in any election. Therefore, as an American citizen, I have just as
much right to complain as anyone else, regardless of whether or not I
vote. The fact is that there is no one in this election that I want
to vote for and I refuse to give my vote to either party under the
guise of picking the lesser of two evils. I want a real choice
before I will cast my vote again. And I do not subscribe to the
theory that my not voting either helps or hurts either candidate.
Besides, it's not like I do not participate in the democratic
process. I write emails to senators and congressmen all the time and
I express my opinion at places like vote.com where they send email to
the interested party regarding every vote I make. I also sign
petitions on issues that I support or oppose as the case may be. So
it's not like I'm doing nothing. It's just that my vote is too
precious to me to waste on a candidate that I do not support.
<sigh> I understand and agree with you about your right not to vote, in
Australia voting is compulsory, you either vote or get fined. Thats of
course if you are registered, there is a significant fine involved if you do
not register.
--
Regards Lee
Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of
enthusiasm. ~ Sir Winston Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ade" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
30 Jun 2004 03:52:17 AM |
|
|
"Flashfire" <ramblinin@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:2kfac5F1kejlU1@uni-berlin.de:
Indigo Moon Man wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it
state that my freedom of speech is in any way dependant
upon whether or not I vote in any election. Therefore, as
an American citizen, I have just as much right to complain
as anyone else, regardless of whether or not I vote. The
fact is that there is no one in this election that I want
to vote for and I refuse to give my vote to either party
under the guise of picking the lesser of two evils. I want
a real choice before I will cast my vote again. And I do
not subscribe to the theory that my not voting either helps
or hurts either candidate.
Besides, it's not like I do not participate in the
democratic process. I write emails to senators and
congressmen all the time and I express my opinion at places
like vote.com where they send email to the interested party
regarding every vote I make. I also sign petitions on
issues that I support or oppose as the case may be. So
it's not like I'm doing nothing. It's just that my vote is
too precious to me to waste on a candidate that I do not
support.
<sigh> I understand and agree with you about your right not
to vote, in Australia voting is compulsory, you either vote
or get fined. Thats of course if you are registered, there
is a significant fine involved if you do not register.
--
Regards Lee
Success consists of going from failure to failure without
loss of enthusiasm. ~ Sir Winston Churchill
jeez, talk about force
--
Ade
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flashfire" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
30 Jun 2004 05:28:16 AM |
|
|
Ade wrote:
jeez, talk about force
Yep and as we are a two party system, your choice of who to vote for is
pretty slim as well, you either vote for labour which does everything it can
to bankrupt the country, or you can vote liberal which does everything it
can to bankrupt the people.
--
Regards Lee
Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of
enthusiasm. ~ Sir Winston Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alistaire" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
30 Jun 2004 10:49:52 AM |
|
|
"Flashfire" <ramblinin@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<2kfiu2F1o38tU1@uni-berlin.de>...
Ade wrote:
jeez, talk about force
Yep and as we are a two party system, your choice of who to vote for is
pretty slim as well, you either vote for labour which does everything it can
to bankrupt the country, or you can vote liberal which does everything it
can to bankrupt the people.
You have more of a choice than we here in the U.S. do.
In the past dozen years the parties have become indistnguishable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Velvet Elvis" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
30 Jun 2004 12:54:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:49:52 -0700, Alistaire wrote:
In the past dozen years the parties have become indistnguishable.
Under Clinton/Gore, I'd have supported that statement. This next election
is much more polarized. Bush leans farther to the right than any
president since Nixon, if not Hoover, and Kerry is more liberal than all
the Kennidies combined. I voted Nader last time, as Gore was too far
centrist for me to consider voting for, but I'm behind Kerry 100% this
time around.
As far as one having a right not to vote. True. Nowhere in the
constitution does it say you must vote. The constitution speaks of
rights, not duty and moral obligation. The constitution also does not
state that one must save a human life if one has the opportunity and no
harm will come to oneself by doing so. For example, if you are standing
beside a river and holding a rope when someone floats by struggling to
stay afloat, it's fair to say that you have some kind of duty to throw the
rope out to them. In a land of laws and rights, duty is a concept that is
very often left behind. I consider one's duties to be the flipside of
one's rights. For example, it's a duty to pay taxes to the state in
exchange for the state guaranteeing your rights. The only reason we have
laws mandating that people pay taxes is because organized religion has
confused so many people when it comes to morality that they have no idea
what they are supposed to do in any given circumstance.
In short, yes, you have the right not to vote. You also have the right to
sit and watch a person die when you could save their life instead. You'd
have broken no laws. That doesn't mean you're not scum for letting the
person die.
You have the right to not vote, but if you dare complain about the outcome
of the election, I'd consider it my duty to tell you to shut up. There
are hundreds of independent and third party candidates, from the
libertarians to the communists, to the transcendental meditation party.
If you investigate all of these and can't find one that you agree with,
I'd say you have a duty (to yourself) to run for office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
30 Jun 2004 03:10:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:54:09 GMT, Velvet Elvis
<gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
As far as one having a right not to vote. True. Nowhere in the
constitution does it say you must vote. The constitution speaks of
rights, not duty and moral obligation. The constitution also does not
state that one must save a human life if one has the opportunity and no
harm will come to oneself by doing so. For example, if you are standing
beside a river and holding a rope when someone floats by struggling to
stay afloat, it's fair to say that you have some kind of duty to throw the
rope out to them.
Most states have good Samaritan laws.
In a land of laws and rights, duty is a concept that is
very often left behind. I consider one's duties to be the flipside of
one's rights. For example, it's a duty to pay taxes to the state in
exchange for the state guaranteeing your rights. The only reason we have
laws mandating that people pay taxes is because organized religion has
confused so many people when it comes to morality that they have no idea
what they are supposed to do in any given circumstance.
A duty to pay taxes? That is like referring to getting mugged as a duty.
It doesn't even make logical sense. The Constitution calls for equal
protection under the law. Logically a duty to pay taxes to secure that
right should be equal also. But taxes are anything but equal.
--
When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual
sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone
will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much
from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who
gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential
and calculating.
- Fredric Bastiat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Indigo Moon Man" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
30 Jun 2004 06:48:06 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Velvet Elvis <gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
In short, yes, you have the right not to vote. You also have the right to
sit and watch a person die when you could save their life instead.
The two things are nothing alike in my opinion.
That doesn't mean you're not scum for letting the
person die.
Are you saying that I'm scum because I don't vote? What am I if I vote for
someone that I don't think should be leading the country just so I can say I
voted?
--
A Voice in the Wilderness:
http://avoice.netfirms.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Velvet Elvis" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
01 Jul 2004 04:06:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 01:48:06 +0200, Indigo Moon Man wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Velvet Elvis <gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
In short, yes, you have the right not to vote. You also have the right to
sit and watch a person die when you could save their life instead.
The two things are nothing alike in my opinion.
That doesn't mean you're not scum for letting the
person die.
Are you saying that I'm scum because I don't vote? What am I if I vote for
someone that I don't think should be leading the country just so I can say I
voted?
No. I"m not saying that. I went a little overboard with my examples
there. What I'm basically saying is that it's the vote that defines one
as a citizen. If one does not vote, one should not be considered a
citizen and therefor have the rights guaranteed to those who vote. I
consider it a failing of our current democracy that we do not have such
incentives to encourage participation in government. It's not just me
saying this. Aristotle said it first and many of the founding fathers
tossed the idea around when they were drawing up the constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 12:50:24 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Velvet Elvis" <gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
No. I"m not saying that. I went a little overboard with my examples
there. What I'm basically saying is that it's the vote that defines one
as a citizen. If one does not vote, one should not be considered a
citizen and therefor have the rights guaranteed to those who vote. I
consider it a failing of our current democracy that we do not have such
incentives to encourage participation in government.
I want to understand this. Lets assume that touchscreen voting
machines are in use which enforce that you cast your vote
for either of two candidates, where the machine makes making your
vote invalid impossible, and that the touchscreen machines do
not allow for any other choices, such as "None of the above".
Both candidates are disgusting, if not
to say professional criminals. How is a voter supposed to express
that both candidates are not trustworthy, when not voting
would lose him some rights?
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Velvet Elvis" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 12:43:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 07:50:24 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote:
I want to understand this. Lets assume that touchscreen voting
machines are in use which enforce that you cast your vote
for either of two candidates, where the machine makes making your
vote invalid impossible, and that the touchscreen machines do
not allow for any other choices, such as "None of the above".
Both candidates are disgusting, if not
to say professional criminals. How is a voter supposed to express
that both candidates are not trustworthy, when not voting
would lose him some rights?
Such a circumstance could only come to pass if the electorate were
apathetic enough to let it happen. There are primaries you have the
option of voting in as well. There are also dozens of thrid party
candidates. If it were just a choice of two horrible candidates, it
would be the duty of the people to pick up arms and replace the government
with one that was truly representative.
I normally vote for third party candidates, but am going with Kerry this
time as I think he's the best candidate the Democratic party has come up
with since JFK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 01:56:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:43:11 GMT, Velvet Elvis
<gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
I normally vote for third party candidates, but am going with Kerry this
time as I think he's the best candidate the Democratic party has come up
with since JFK.
JFK? Kennedy knew the benefit of reducing taxes. Kerry wants to roll back
the tax cuts.
--
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
- Bruce Lee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Velvet Elvis" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 02:48:28 PM |
|
|
CyberDroog wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:43:11 GMT, Velvet Elvis
<gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
I normally vote for third party candidates, but am going with Kerry this
time as I think he's the best candidate the Democratic party has come up
with since JFK.
JFK? Kennedy knew the benefit of reducing taxes. Kerry wants to roll
back the tax cuts.
Kennedy never cut taxes in the middle of war when there was a balooning
deficit.
--
To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
- Bruce Lee
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 04:45:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:48:28 GMT, Velvet Elvis
<gamboltREMOVE@softhomTHIS.com> wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:43:11 GMT, Velvet Elvis
<gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
I normally vote for third party candidates, but am going with Kerry this
time as I think he's the best candidate the Democratic party has come up
with since JFK.
JFK? Kennedy knew the benefit of reducing taxes. Kerry wants to roll
back the tax cuts.
Kennedy never cut taxes in the middle of war when there was a balooning
deficit.
Rising tides lift all boats - regardless of whether or not there is a war.
--
REFORM, v. A thing that mostly satisfies reformers opposed to
reformation.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 11:17:00 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:43:11 GMT, Velvet Elvis
<gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
I normally vote for third party candidates, but am going with Kerry this
time as I think he's the best candidate the Democratic party has come up
with since JFK.
JFK? Kennedy knew the benefit of reducing taxes.
Kerry wants to roll back the tax cuts.
Bush has not reduced taxes, he has postponed them by dramatically
increasing the national debt while increasing government spending.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 02:14:17 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Velvet Elvis" <gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 07:50:24 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote:
I want to understand this. Lets assume that touchscreen voting
machines are in use which enforce that you cast your vote
for either of two candidates, where the machine makes making your
vote invalid impossible, and that the touchscreen machines do
not allow for any other choices, such as "None of the above".
Both candidates are disgusting, if not
to say professional criminals. How is a voter supposed to express
that both candidates are not trustworthy, when not voting
would lose him some rights?
Such a circumstance could only come to pass if the electorate were
apathetic enough to let it happen.
The electorate *is* apathetic enough. Respectively, many people
think that whatever they do won't make a difference. And the really
sad thing is that they are right. If you live in NY, or in Texas, why vote
at the next presidential elections? Kerry will win NY, Bush will
win Texas, and even a few hundred thousand additional votes
will have absolutely zero impact.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Velvet Elvis" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 04:16:09 PM |
|
|
Thomas Dehn wrote:
The electorate *is* apathetic enough. Respectively, many people
think that whatever they do won't make a difference. And the really
sad thing is that they are right. If you live in NY, or in Texas, why vote
at the next presidential elections? Kerry will win NY, Bush will
win Texas, and even a few hundred thousand additional votes
will have absolutely zero impact.
Not if people don't vote.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
03 Jul 2004 12:01:12 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Velvet Elvis" <gamboltREMOVE@softhomTHIS.com> wrote:
Thomas Dehn wrote:
The electorate *is* apathetic enough. Respectively, many people
think that whatever they do won't make a difference. And the really
sad thing is that they are right. If you live in NY, or in Texas, why vote
at the next presidential elections? Kerry will win NY, Bush will
win Texas, and even a few hundred thousand additional votes
will have absolutely zero impact.
Not if people don't vote.
You can't realistically expect that nobody votes. Even in
a state which is not contested, something like 40% of all
potential voters will vote in a presidential election.
With, say, Kerry getting 65% and Bush getting 35% in NY,
Bush will be several million votes behind Kerry in NY.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 12:01:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 07:50:24 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"Velvet Elvis" <gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
No. I"m not saying that. I went a little overboard with my examples
there. What I'm basically saying is that it's the vote that defines one
as a citizen. If one does not vote, one should not be considered a
citizen and therefor have the rights guaranteed to those who vote. I
consider it a failing of our current democracy that we do not have such
incentives to encourage participation in government.
I want to understand this. Lets assume that touchscreen voting
machines are in use which enforce that you cast your vote
for either of two candidates, where the machine makes making your
vote invalid impossible, and that the touchscreen machines do
not allow for any other choices, such as "None of the above".
Both candidates are disgusting, if not
to say professional criminals. How is a voter supposed to express
that both candidates are not trustworthy, when not voting
would lose him some rights?
It's the same drawback as a conscripted army. Why would anyone want
someone who couldn't care less about government to vote? It's like sitting
in a fox-hole with someone who is there only because he was drafted.
--
CONVENT, n. A place of retirement for woman who wish for leisure to
meditate upon the vice of idleness.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 02:15:28 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 07:50:24 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"Velvet Elvis" <gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
No. I"m not saying that. I went a little overboard with my examples
there. What I'm basically saying is that it's the vote that defines one
as a citizen. If one does not vote, one should not be considered a
citizen and therefor have the rights guaranteed to those who vote. I
consider it a failing of our current democracy that we do not have such
incentives to encourage participation in government.
I want to understand this. Lets assume that touchscreen voting
machines are in use which enforce that you cast your vote
for either of two candidates, where the machine makes making your
vote invalid impossible, and that the touchscreen machines do
not allow for any other choices, such as "None of the above".
Both candidates are disgusting, if not
to say professional criminals. How is a voter supposed to express
that both candidates are not trustworthy, when not voting
would lose him some rights?
It's the same drawback as a conscripted army. Why would anyone want
someone who couldn't care less about government to vote?
This is not about those who don't want to vote. It is
about those who think that the two candidates both
are unqualified for the job. If a country were a company, none
of the candidates would get hired. Gore vs. Bush,
Schroeder vs. Stoiber, Bush vs. Kerry, thats not an
election of the man who will lead the country, thats trying
to figure out which of the two evils is even worse than the other.
I'm not sure I would trust any of those six guys with my
luggage. Probably not. :->>>
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Velvet Elvis" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 04:22:48 PM |
|
|
Thomas Dehn wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberpresidentialorkOrange.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 07:50:24 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"Velvet Elvis" <gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
No. I"m not saying that. I went a little overboard with my examples
there. What I'm basically saying is that it's the vote that defines
one
as a citizen. If one does not vote, one should not be considered a
citizen and therefor have the rights guaranteed to those who vote. I
consider it a failing of our current democracy that we do not have
such incentives to encourage participation in government.
I want to understand this. Lets assume that touchscreen voting
machines are in use which enforce that you cast your vote
for either of two candidates, where the machine makes making your
vote invalid impossible, and that the touchscreen machines do
not allow for any other choices, such as "None of the above".
Both candidates are disgusting, if not
to say professional criminals. How is a voter supposed to express
that both candidates are not trustworthy, when not voting
would lose him some rights?
It's the same drawback as a conscripted army. Why would anyone want
someone who couldn't care less about government to vote?
This is not about those who don't want to vote. It is
about those who think that the two candidates both
are unqualified for the job. If a country were a company, none
of the candidates would get hired. Gore vs. Bush,
Schroeder vs. Stoiber, Bush vs. Kerry, thats not an
election of the man who will lead the country, thats trying
to figure out which of the two evils is even worse than the other.
I'm not sure I would trust any of those six guys with my
luggage. Probably not. :->>>
See, this is why I consider voting a duty. Not just voting in the
presidential elections, but in primaries and local elections, etc. If
people were to take a larger interest in politics at the local level,
goofballs like we see in congress would never rise through to party ranks
to positions of power. If you vote someone out when they are a lousy dog
catcher, they will never rise to be a lousy president. Voting is the one
and only thing we can do to keep our coutry from going to hell in a
handbasket. That's why one has a civic and moral duty to vote if one gives
a damn about one's country.
Michael Moore has often said that you can get twenty or thirty people and
take over your local democratic or republican party. In most places, they
are run by just a handfull of good old boys because nobody else can be
bothered to step in and see if they can do a better job.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 04:53:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 21:22:48 GMT, Velvet Elvis
<gamboltREMOVE@softhomTHIS.com> wrote:
See, this is why I consider voting a duty. Not just voting in the
presidential elections, but in primaries and local elections, etc. If
people were to take a larger interest in politics at the local level,
goofballs like we see in congress would never rise through to party ranks
to positions of power. If you vote someone out when they are a lousy dog
catcher, they will never rise to be a lousy president. Voting is the one
and only thing we can do to keep our coutry from going to hell in a
handbasket. That's why one has a civic and moral duty to vote if one gives
a damn about one's country.
You might as well suggest that Britney Spears is a lousy singer and
shouldn't sell any albums. You can't fight the people who are buying them.
Michael Moore has often said that you can get twenty or thirty people and
take over your local democratic or republican party. In most places, they
are run by just a handfull of good old boys because nobody else can be
bothered to step in and see if they can do a better job.
Try finding twenty or thirty people who won't end up stabbing you in the
back when they see a chance to grab power.
--
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly
teaches me to suspect that my own is also.
- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
06 Jul 2004 02:23:26 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Velvet Elvis" <gamboltREMOVE@softhomTHIS.com> wrote:
Thomas Dehn wrote:
[...]
It's the same drawback as a conscripted army. Why would anyone want
someone who couldn't care less about government to vote?
This is not about those who don't want to vote. It is
about those who think that the two candidates both
are unqualified for the job. If a country were a company, none
of the candidates would get hired. Gore vs. Bush,
Schroeder vs. Stoiber, Bush vs. Kerry, thats not an
election of the man who will lead the country, thats trying
to figure out which of the two evils is even worse than the other.
I'm not sure I would trust any of those six guys with my
luggage. Probably not. :->>>
See, this is why I consider voting a duty. Not just voting in the
presidential elections, but in primaries and local elections, etc. If
people were to take a larger interest in politics at the local level,
goofballs like we see in congress would never rise through to party ranks
to positions of power.
The goofballs you see in congress do not "rise through party ranks".
They have put down a few million to get on the ballot. They
frequently have not done 20 years of local political work
before they became a senator, or a representative.
Michael Moore has often said that you can get twenty or thirty people and
take over your local democratic or republican party. In most places, they
are run by just a handfull of good old boys because nobody else can be
bothered to step in and see if they can do a better job.
If you look at the various German parliaments, you'll
see that we have quite a selection of different types of
governments. We have had absolute majorities of the
social democrats, and of each of the two "christian"
democratic parties. We have had social democrat-green coalitions,
social democrat-liberal coalitions, social democrat-socialist
coalitions, social democrat-christian democrat coalitions,
christian democrat-liberal coalitions, plus a few more
variations where other small, locally successful parties
come into play. All those changes and variations had only
marginal impact on actual politics, even the "the GDR was
such a nice place, we want it back" socialists, when they
are at the steering wheel, do not make politics radically
different from the other parties. They don't dare, because
they expect that keeping a low profile will help them
get reelected.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Whiskers" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
06 Jul 2004 05:15:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:23:26 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
snip
They
don't dare, because they expect that keeping a low profile will help them
get reelected.
snip
And, of course, here in Europe the principle that the ruler rules only by
the consent of the ruled has been put to the test in very practical ways
several times - which must concentrate the mind somewhat ;))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
07 Jul 2004 12:17:21 AM |
|
|
In message
<pan.2004.07.06.22.15.00.555089@ID-107770.user.uni-berlin.de>, Whiskers
<catwheezel@operamail.com> writes
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:23:26 +0200, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
snip
They
don't dare, because they expect that keeping a low profile will help them
get reelected.
snip
And, of course, here in Europe the principle that the ruler rules only by
the consent of the ruled has been put to the test in very practical ways
several times - which must concentrate the mind somewhat ;))
If we get Charles the Third, I'm starting a campaign to bring back
drinking horns and red-hot pokers. The man's an idiot.
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Indigo Moon Man" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
01 Jul 2004 11:36:32 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Velvet Elvis <gamboltREMOVE@softhomeTHIS.net> wrote:
Are you saying that I'm scum because I don't vote? What am I if I vote
for someone that I don't think should be leading the country just so I
can say I voted?
No. I"m not saying that. I went a little overboard with my examples
there. What I'm basically saying is that it's the vote that defines one
as a citizen. If one does not vote, one should not be considered a
citizen and therefor have the rights guaranteed to those who vote. I
consider it a failing of our current democracy that we do not have such
incentives to encourage participation in government. It's not just me
saying this. Aristotle said it first and many of the founding fathers
tossed the idea around when they were drawing up the constitution.
Oh, ok. I see what you mean now. Well, usually I do vote but I don't
believe that I should have less rights if I don't vote.
--
A Voice in the Wilderness:
http://avoice.netfirms.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Velvet Elvis" |
|
| Title: Re: My right to not vote (a tiny rant) |
02 Jul 2004 12:47:23 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 06:36:32 +0200, Indigo Moon Man wrote:
Oh, ok. I see what you mean now. Well, usually I do vote but I don't
believe that I should have less rights if I don't vote.
FWIW, if memory serves, one of the reasons that there are no provisions in
the constitution to encourage voting is that the founding fathers thought
the people would find it insulting that anyone would think that they would
need encouragement to vote in the first place. When a new democracy first
gets to vote, it's like a teenaged boy when he first learns to masturbate.
They do it often and with glee.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
