Why should I vote?

Even if there are tiny differences between the candidates (which is not true in this year's presidential election), you should take the effort to vote just to nudge the country in a better direction.

We would not be in better shape today if McCain had won, and we'd be way better off if Gore had won. The apathetic and those writing in Cthulhu can and have made this country a worse place. Be pragmatic, go vote for best candidate with a chance of winning.

ChrisLTD wrote:

Even if there are tiny differences between the candidates (which is not true in this year's presidential election), you should take the effort to vote just to nudge the country in a better direction.

We would not be in better shape today if McCain had won, and we'd be way better off if Gore had won. The apathetic and those writing in Cthulhu can and have made this country a worse place. Be pragmatic, go vote for best candidate with a chance of winning.

I don't think Gore would have saved anything, though I agree McCain was bad, bad news and I wouldn't elect Palin to run a 2nd grade kickball team. But I disagree with your base assertion emphatically. Your methodology removes any consideration for what they will actually do when they're in office, and traps us in a spiraling free-fall as "good enough" and "electable" become your criteria rather than stance on issues and what they actually do and if they are any good at actual governing. There is no "best" when both are bad in very similar ways.

The only statement you can make that actually sends a message is to vote for neither. Not voting at all doesn't send any message because it's lost in the sea of people who don't vote because they don't care rather than don't vote because they don't like either of the rascals they're being asked to choose from. Since our system doesn't include an option for "none of the above", writing in something like Cthulhu is the only way to send that signal. Especially when combined with strong participation in the choosing of the candidates (like your state Primary) so better people are on the ballot to choose from, and contact with the candidates and whoever ends up elected so they know why and the fact that you've done this a lot over time and built a relationship so it actually matters.

If I had to pick a villain for this piece, I would choose the partisan Party-based BS that has been slowly worked into our voting laws in all 50 states as by far the worst evil here. In many states the Party organizations themselves manage the elections. Talk about the inmates running the asylum.

Robear wrote:
I've taken the general stance of voting against incumbents, unless I'm presented with some compelling argument not to. I don't believe the founding fathers intended elected political office to be a career, and if anything it may help to mitigate the problem of the so called "iron triangle".

Actually, that's not so. There were some early attempts in Congress to try out an amateur politician approach, which failed roundly. Which part of the Constitution bans politicians from re-election (outside the two-term limit for Presidents, which was put in place in the 40's, I think)? Term limits were not left out because no one thought of them, they were left out because the benefits of a political career to the country outweighed the debits.

I'm pretty sure 21 states have enacted term limits in the last two decades or so, and 5 of them have since pulled back. What has been found by studies is that politicians who are term-limited are *less* responsive to constituents, *less* engaged in the issues, and *more* interested in making connections to become lobbyists after their terms expire. Kind of the opposite of what you might expect, but obvious if you think of the problem as "how do we engage politicians in their district issues?", which clearly would favor a long-sitting person instead of a short-termer.

It's funny that people's idea of a fix to the problem "Why are my representatives incompetent?" would be "send in someone with no experience and get rid of him after his term is up". I mean, seriously?

I didn't vote for long time senator Richard Lugar in the recent Indiana primary. I guess voting for a 'rookie' (which doesn't mean I'll vote for him in the general election, btw) was a mistake.

momgamer wrote:

The only statement you can make that actually sends a message is to vote for neither. Not voting at all doesn't send any message because it's lost in the sea of people who don't vote because they don't care rather than don't vote because they don't like either of the rascals they're being asked to choose from. Since our system doesn't include an option for "none of the above", writing in something like Cthulhu is the only way to send that signal.

Does that actually send a message? Do ballots that are a straight Cthulu ticket (for instance) get counted differently from ones that are discounted because of genuine voter error (e.g. marking your vote in the wrong place)?

We sort of look at voting as a value and we should not. In fact, things like ballot measures, often are used by special interest to enact laws that are either unconstitutional or only beneficial to a small segment of the population or just plain bigoted.

Voting has become the symbol of the individual exercising their civil rights. We view it as a way to further our own personal ideals. However, civic responsibility is about thinking of the greater good and not about imposing your values on the rest of the populace.

Maybe it is just because I am getting older, but it seems to me that we have lost sight of what real civic responsibility means. It should be about duty, sacrifice, pride, and the responsibility you have toward your fellow man, your community, and the nation.

We have let everyone off the hook and we no longer encourage group think in public discourse. With the children of the Self-Esteem Movement about to grow up, it might be a while before our leaders decide to challenge us as individuals to do something BESIDES just vote.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the leaders called the country to action. Time to buckle down, work hard, sacrifice, because your country needs you support. You have to give up rubber, pantyhose, food, metal, fuel, textiles, etc., etc. because we needed that stuff to fight the war.

Do you think anyone will look back on us and say, "they were the Greatest Generation"?
What did we get after Al Qaeda attacked the US...go shopping, get yourself something nice, take a vacation. Just go spend some money.

Just watch the upcoming election. It will all be about what they are going to do for YOU and how they represent YOUR values. They are going to fill our heads with all the wonderful things they will do for US (not U.S.) once elected/re-elected. They deliberately make us feel important and special. When we fill out that ballot and slap that sticker on we feel, at least for a day, that they are right.

It actually shows up in the results - there were six other people in my precinct besides me who did it in the last election. We out-voted Mickey Mouse. And coupling that with actually explaining yourself by participating in other ways it does send a message that I'm willing to back up my assertions with what action I can.

I think if more people did it, there would be a good effect. Especially if we can get more people who aren't the fringe extremes to come out in the earlier part of the election cycle and help get better choices on the ballot.

momgamer wrote:

It actually shows up in the results - there were six other people in my precinct besides me who did it in the last election. We out-voted Mickey Mouse. And coupling that with actually explaining yourself by participating in other ways it does send a message that I'm willing to back up my assertions with what action I can.

I think if more people did it, there would be a good effect. Especially if we can get more people who aren't the fringe extremes to come out in the earlier part of the election cycle and help get better choices on the ballot.

Interesting!

I'm with heavyfuel on this one. The amount of time required to research each issue and person is high if you are going to vote responsibly. That assumes that the research ends up giving you true information.

I'd say a person is being a more responsible citizen by using that research time to do something constructive that helps the community you live in. Chances are that research time leads you to vote as momgamer does. I may have to vote that way in the future since it does do a little something. If anything it lets you respond to an institution that is mostly a joke with a joke.

momgamer wrote:

Since our system doesn't include an option for "none of the above", writing in something like Cthulhu is the only way to send that signal. Especially when combined with strong participation in the choosing of the candidates (like your state Primary) so better people are on the ballot to choose from, and contact with the candidates and whoever ends up elected so they know why and the fact that you've done this a lot over time and built a relationship so it actually matters.

I agree with the second half of what you're saying, but not the first. The time to get better candidates is before election day through volunteering, donations, or some other kind of participation. Once election day rolls around your best bet for making your town, state, or country a better place is to vote for an actual candidate that can win. One of those people is going to win anyways, so why not aid your fellow citizens out and help the best candidate win?

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

I'm with heavyfuel on this one. The amount of time required to research each issue and person is high if you are going to vote responsibly. That assumes that the research ends up giving you true information.

For major political offices you should only need a night of internet research to pick sides for most major candidates and issues on the ballot. The barriers to information are lower today than ever before!

LobsterMobster wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

Slightly cynical. I don't see governments protecting us from big companies anymore.

That we feel safe enough to worry about things like companies is a testament to how good our governments are at maintaining peace and order (even if we don't like the cost).

I will leave it at that lol We couldn't disagree more

Sparhawk wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

Slightly cynical. I don't see governments protecting us from big companies anymore.

That we feel safe enough to worry about things like companies is a testament to how good our governments are at maintaining peace and order (even if we don't like the cost).

I will leave it at that lol We couldn't disagree more ;)

I think Lobster has a good point. Our basic infrastructure is pretty astounding and the size of our economy is the envy of the World. We are an extremely affluent and successful society when you break it down objectively.

When I see the world around beginning to fail, I will start to worry, but it seems that no matter what happens around the world and the nation, my day to day is is not affected.

Most, not all, of the people I meet that decry the the state of our nation are not the ones rolling up their sleeves everyday and taking care of their own business.

ChrisLTD wrote:
momgamer wrote:

Since our system doesn't include an option for "none of the above", writing in something like Cthulhu is the only way to send that signal. Especially when combined with strong participation in the choosing of the candidates (like your state Primary) so better people are on the ballot to choose from, and contact with the candidates and whoever ends up elected so they know why and the fact that you've done this a lot over time and built a relationship so it actually matters.

I agree with the second half of what you're saying, but not the first. The time to get better candidates is before election day through volunteering, donations, or some other kind of participation. Once election day rolls around your best bet for making your town, state, or country a better place is to vote for an actual candidate that can win. One of those people is going to win anyways, so why not aid your fellow citizens out and help the best candidate win?

Because for some people there is more integrity in researching and finding all candidates lacking, but showing up to at least spoil a ballot, than in casting a vote for someone you don't actually support. It's still a responsible exercise of citizenship.

clover wrote:

Because for some people there is more integrity in researching and finding all candidates lacking, but showing up to at least spoil a ballot, than in casting a vote for someone you don't actually support. It's still a responsible exercise of citizenship.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but when has 'spoiling' a ballot ever made any sort of difference? I suppose if you could get enough voters together to make up a meaningful percentage you might make the news for a few days. But if you have that kind of organization then why not pool together and get your preferred candidate on the ballot?

Of course, it's your right not to vote or to write-in some fake name, but don't pretend it's some kind of honorable course of action. It sucks that our political process doesn't generally lead to easy choices between stellar candidates. However the course of our lives can be improved if enough reasonable people participate and help the best candidate win.

ChrisLTD wrote:

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but when has 'spoiling' a ballot ever made any sort of difference? I suppose if you could get enough voters together to make up a meaningful percentage you might make the news for a few days. But if you have that kind of organization then why not pool together and get your preferred candidate on the ballot?

That assumes they all spoil for the same reasons and would somehow all agree on an alternative candidate.

First, I want to point out that I'm sorry if I sound strident, but I'm between the hammer and the anvil right now in my personal life. Please, everyone, understand I don't in any way think however anyone chooses to deal with this is bad. You're a grownup and you can make your choices. That's part of the wonderful thing about this, and I'm not one of those people who thinks voting should be mandatory or whatever.

ChrisLTD wrote:

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but when has 'spoiling' a ballot ever made any sort of difference? I suppose if you could get enough voters together to make up a meaningful percentage you might make the news for a few days. But if you have that kind of organization then why not pool together and get your preferred candidate on the ballot?

Because in many states, you really can't do that thanks to the local web of laws and election procedures. See the my assertion about the parties themselves running the elections. Here is a great one from my own state. Did you know that the state of Washington didn't even have a Primary election this time around? They can choose to do that. The delegates were chosen in the caucuses and that was that.

Heck, there are states in the this country right now that have asserted they don't have to include the sitting president on the ballot. The Secretary of State in Arizona has spent the last three months trying to block him and it's still up in the air whether he will give in or try another tack. It's also wending it's way through the courts in Georgia, Florida and Pennsylvania.

I don't like doing this. It's not the way things are supposed to work. But I have not been able to find another way to do it in any conscience.

In some ways, doing it my way exercises what I consider to be a disproportionate influence. Do you even know where your precinct held it's last party caucus? Did you go? I went in 2008. I ended up losing my temper with a self-sanctified prick who kept trying to get a bunch of planks we're now seeing as the "War on Women" laws codified in the Republican party platform and tried to tell everyone that Jesus had ordered him to get into politics. He wasn't even running for office at the time. My comments pointing out to him that according to the Bible he'd wrapped around himself Jesus never told anyone else that and in fact, told anyone who followed him with any political power at all to drop it immediately and stay out even at the cost of their and other people's lives. Then I pointed out he was trying to set up a new set of Sadducees and Pharisees, with a couple quick points about how well Jesus had got on with them. He tried to throw bible verses at me, which I used my phone copy of the Bible to refute. The wrangle a) got me asked to leave but also b) swayed about a dozen people to leave with me.

Did it change anything? I do know that several of the things he was trying for didn't end up in the draft our precinct sent up but I don't have any way of know if what I said caused it. I don't know what it did to people's actions in the voting booth, and I never will. I don't know who else they talked to about this and what it may have done. I do know that said prick lost a bid for state representative last time around (but I don't believe it had anything to do with it -- I'm not the only one who could see what a piece of work he is).

But I believe if enough others who aren't that kind of frothing idiot had taken the time to be there his harping would have hopefully been lost in a sea of reasonable ideas. And if it happened at a reasonable percentage of precincts, maybe we'd have a better rogue's gallery to choose from on election day.

Are there people I would vote for? Yeah. I would have voted for Huntsman for President based on what I currently know about him. I almost wrote in Ron Paul in 2008 instead of a fictional character but I couldn't remember the name of his running mate when I got to the booth. In retrospect, I'm not sure that wasn't a good thing.

Another thing to point out is that elections decide more than one thing. Maybe you don't want to vote for president because you think it doesn't matter, but on that same sheet of paper we have local initiatives, local and state offices, referendums, and all sorts of other things. Those things are even more important that you make your voice heard.

momgamer wrote:

writing in something like Cthulhu is the only way to send that signal.

It's fun and games until he wins. Then we're all f*cked.

momgamer wrote:

Another thing to point out is that elections decide more than one thing. Maybe you don't want to vote for president because you think it doesn't matter, but on that same sheet of paper we have local initiatives, local and state offices, referendums, and all sorts of other things. Those things are even more important that you make your voice heard.

Excellent point. It's easy to get too caught up in national politics even when small local changes can have a huge effect on your life.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
momgamer wrote:

writing in something like Cthulhu is the only way to send that signal.

It's fun and games until he wins. Then we're all f*cked.

I just want him included in the debates. Is that too much to ask?

Well, considering that none of the other debaters would survive the experience, they'd probably think so.

Malor wrote:

Well, considering that none of the other debaters would survive the experience, they'd probably think so.

That reminds me of the Futurama debate between Lrrr and the Hippie.

Ending:

I'ma votin for Lrrr.

Feeding Romney to Cthulhu might be just the thing -- hairspray's poisonous, right?

Malor wrote:

Feeding Romney to Cthulhu might be just the thing -- hairspray's poisonous, right?

I thought politicians, in general, are poisonous.

That's not poison, that's just evil. For Cthulhu, politician is good food.

Malor wrote:

Well, considering that none of the other debaters would survive the experience, they'd probably think so.

Sounds like a great way to thin the herd.

I make a point to always vote. I can say many, many bad things about Nebraska. The local government is reasonably well-run, though, and there's (usually) not the partisan crap everywhere else. Plus, the unicameral system, sane handling of Independent voters, and proportional electoral distribution (And local laws working towards equality, believe it or not), means it's less Sisyphean on the ballots here, at least.