Because when you don’t vote the person you want least to win benefits. If you do vote at least you cancel out one of their voters.
It does, which is why it’s silly to have federal(or even state) rules dictating most of what happens.
Can you provide examples of ways in which your local government has more effect on you than the Feds? I can’t. The only things I can think of that are decided at a local level are almost-completely inconsequential. Of the things that are decided locally, I can’t think of much difference between any candidates(which may be a result of the aforementioned).
I agree that local elections should be more important, but they make almost difference. We’d have to time machine back 100+ years before I could agree local stuff is more important.
Edit: The biggest reason federal elections matter most is that you can’t leave the fed without giving up a lot(access to family and friends, plenty of money, etc.). You can move to the next town or county pretty easily.
A vote for this demagogue or that demagogue is still a vote for a demagogue. I don’t want a demagogue. I want an honest and faithful leader who I can trust will not erode my liberty and the liberty of my fellow citizens. The choices for POTUS, as it were, I see do not represent my ideals. They do not represent a limited government nor do they encourage self-governance by any stretch.
And this idea that I can’t have an opinion (you didn’t say this - but I’ve heard this argument and reject it) because I chose not to vote doesn’t hold water … My choice is that none of these candidates put forth are worth my time to vote for - that’s a choice and me exercising my civic duty - I work in data and we have a saying - trash in, trash out - it’s the same with government.
I don’t think it’s apathetic by any stretch. I’m not in the business or mindset of benefiting someone I vehemently disagree with, as it were. That’s a false dichotomy - as there are OTHER choices THAT ALSO exercise my civic voice.
And yes, I can criticize anyone I choose to if what they’re proposing affects me and my community - even if I chose not to vote – again which is still a vote that says I do not approve of these candidates. They do not pass muster to be a leader I’d follow - we’re not a nation of slaves where we MUST choose this leader of that leader … the other option is to be a leader yourself - at any level in, any avenue of life.
Again I truly appreciate your outlook, and I find it interesting … I wholeheartedly reject it based on my philosophical beliefs for the reasons above, and others I failed to mention.
I understand your sentiments and hear this often. Sounds like you entrenched in your position but have you ever considered running for some type of office to be the change you wish to see?
Democracy works best when the citizens participate. Even though we disagree I fully support your right to disagree.
You’re not looking for a “leader,” then. You want either a representative or employee.
I think that for your sentiment to be true about not voting being a vote itself, we need to implement a minimum voter turnout. Something like at least 50%+1 of the registered electorate must vote in the election for the vote to count.
It takes very little effort to browse C-Span, find non-biased sources, or actually research what the candidates have planned if they get elected. Truthfully, I do hold some sort of resentment against people who do not vote. If you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t count.
Why? It makes absolutely no sense to resent anyone for not voting. “I was going to vote for Hitler, but decided to sit this one out.” “I resent you.”
Why not? It seems more like if your candidate loses, your opinion doesn’t count. It would make more sense if you said, “If you’re not a net taxpayer, your opinion doesn’t count.”(I wouldn’t necessarily agree in all cases, but it makes sense)
Of course, not voting does not make the ruler any less your ruler. I’d hate to wake the screechers by making any comparisons between anything, but mandatory rule is what it is.
P.S. You should probably move to Somalia, of course.
I wouldn’t say entrenched but I get how you’d think that given my last post … I’m open to change my mind but don’t see anything in the arena that seems worth endorsing.
I’ve considered running for school committee … I belong to my neighborhood improvement association for the time being
At the federal level or across the spectrum? My area would turn into anarchy quick if that’s the case … I’m in
1 Like
Of course
I say accross the board. Keep holding elections every 6 weeks until that minimum turnout is met. This way, if only shit candidates run, a non vote actually means something more than “not a vote for my opponent”.
I wonder, would this be constitutional? It’s not forcing a vote.
Just keep in mind that rain doesn’t like anarchy:
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/rainy-season-starting-late-dire-somalia-drought-areas
I doubt it would be at a federal level … but state or local elections maybe
Telling how he conveniently gives the hate filled, unhinged, lying loony dem psychotics a pass. Trump gets my vote. The left doesn’t even try to hide their hatred of America or our customs and values.
1 Like
Who is the “he” you are talking about? Stone cold? Haha. Austin has never given anyone a pass in his life!
2 Likes
Woooooo !!!
It’s what, not wooo, you jackass.
Well I certainly think people can complain even if they don’t vote I agree that it’s a bit bizarre. Complaining about politics and then abstaining from your chance to reform it by representatives doesn’t make a lot of sense.
But as I’ve said before we’re the same people who scream we need term limits as we elect all the same people over and over again.
I am hard pressed to think of any other action (term limits) that would benefit the US more. Long enough to utilize experience, short enough to keep the pond stirred up.
1 Like