Post #85,021
2/28/03 11:07:43 PM
|
On voting and your vote
To me a vote is a sacred thing to be used after serious thoughts on issues and candidates. Not to be given to the first brazen slut that comes sniffing around for it. Not for a party which is organised by like minded folks panting after power but for the person running for the office. Is that persons aims close to yours? Is there any redeeming quality of the candidate? Do you perceive one candidate more skanky than the other and less skanky should receive the vote? Or do you vote when your comfort level indicates that although many differences in thought processes separate the candidate from yourself is there enough trust of the candidate to do the right thing?
Iraq for example has 100% turnout and 100% voting for the only candidate. Is that even meaningful? I think not.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
|
Post #85,032
3/1/03 2:20:00 AM
|
Bill, you seem to be getting frighteningly ...
serious lately <grin>
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #85,042
3/1/03 7:12:26 AM
|
And here I thought...
that a vote was something you gave after examining the two serious options closely and deciding which one you think you are less likely to catch a disease from.
At least in the US it seems to work that way...
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #85,301
3/3/03 1:02:26 PM
|
You're more correct than you know...
jb4
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
Rich Cook
|
Post #85,046
3/1/03 8:20:00 AM
|
The choice to not choose is still a choice.
Okay, a little bit of the basics here.
If you don't vote, you don't count.
If only 3 people vote out of 100 million people, one guy could win with 66% of the vote (or 100%).
Thought without action is fantasy.
And your vote isn't a "sacred" thing. It is your responsibility for living in a democracy.
Sometimes you have to make the hard choices. It's part of being an adult.
|
Post #85,049
3/1/03 9:53:47 AM
|
Yup, but...
Consider a 3 way race:
Pat Robertson vs Anita Bryant vs Mohammad Omar. Who would your choice be?
I could not vote for any of them for any office. I suspect you're the same way.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - "Freewill" - Neil Peart. :-) Sometimes, not voting for the major candidate, or writing in someone you know has no chance, is the best choice.
Voting for Nader as we did in the last presidential election was effectively the same as not voting. It had no impact on who won in my state of Virginia, and I don't think it affected the outcome in Washington state either. It might have, accidently, affect the outcome in Floridia (due to mistakes some people made in filling out their ballots) - but that assumes people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore rather than staying home (something I don't think is a good assumption). I suspect that if you believed that it was important for your vote to always have a positive impact on who won, you would always vote for one of the top two major candidates. But you didn't, so you don't. Right?
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #85,060
3/1/03 11:44:01 AM
|
What about "None of the Above"?
Wasn't there a proposal in some state to add this choice to the ballot?
Tom Sinclair
"Man, I love it when the complete absence of a plan comes together."
- [link|http://radio.weblogs.com/0104634/|Ernie the Attorney]
|
Post #85,061
3/1/03 11:47:44 AM
|
Brewsters Millions
Richard Pryor movie...and a pretty good one at that.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #85,303
3/3/03 1:08:24 PM
|
Nevada
In the late 70's, Nevada toyed with it. In fact, IIRC several local elections did indeed have a "none of the Above" choice, and it never won more than about 4%.
the problem w/ None of the Above is: What happens if it wins? since Nevada cannot dictate how such an outcome should apply to a federal election (and the Powers That Be would never allow that level of choice to the plebians), the idea sort of died on the vine.
You know, sorta like shit-canning the Electoral College....
That doesn't mean that None of the Above isn't an ide whose time has come....
jb4
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
Rich Cook
|
Post #85,086
3/1/03 2:21:55 PM
|
You answered your own question.
Sometimes, not voting for the major candidate, or writing in someone you know has no chance, is the best choice. You can write in someone who more closely reflects your views. Even if that person has no chance of winning. Voting for Nader as we did in the last presidential election was effectively the same as not voting. No it was not. If nothing else, it reduced the percentage of the total vote that went to either Bush or Gore. In my previous example, 100 million people vote. For 100 million different people. The winning candidate receives 2 or 3 votes. Yep, he's still President. But the situation is very different than if he had received 66% of the votes cast. I suspect that if you believed that it was important for your vote to always have a positive impact on who won, you would always vote for one of the top two major candidates. But you didn't, so you don't. Right? But having a "positive impact" does not always mean voting for the person who won. Again, in my previous example. The "positive impact" would be the realization that the winning candidate would be replace by someone who could muster FOUR votes. As for Gore or Nader, it isn't whether they'd have not voted if Nader hadn't won. They got up and the voted. The issue for the Democrats is "how do we get these people to vote for our candidate in the next election". Getting someone who's already going to vote to vote for you -is much easier- Than getting someone who wasn't even going to vote to get up and go vote and to vote for you.
|
Post #85,331
3/3/03 3:12:35 PM
|
Anita Bryant?
Of orange juice fame? That's a name you don't hear bantered about much anymore!
But she would definately receive my vote (if I voted)...
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me
J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
|
Post #85,059
3/1/03 11:41:59 AM
|
Ok so forced voting on unacceptable candidates is OK
like in Cuba. I dont buy that. How many hard core Republicans and Democrats are there in this country? It is the independent voter that makes the elections. If you notice in primarys the left is hard left and the right is hard right. In the general election they both beat feet to the middle where (hopefully) the independants are. This indicates that both sides will do whatever it takes to get elected as evidenced in the last election. Seeing bush pick cheney as a running mate there was no way I could align myself with the bush41 boys. I was going to hold my nose and vote gore, then he comes up with lieberman as a running mate. No way in hell could I support their positions. So flip a coin? I dont think so. Not voting is a privilege in America and I exercised that privilege.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
|
Post #85,091
3/1/03 2:30:04 PM
|
Do you think Castro would be voted out?
No, tell me. Do your REALLY believe that. hah ha ha ha Okay, time to shatter another one of your illusions. Cuba does NOT have elections. Cuba CLAIMS to have elections. Cuba goes the the MOTIONS of having elections. But Cuba does NOT have elections. There is ZERO possibility that Castro will be voted out of office. It is the independent voter that makes the elections. Yep. And those who don't vote are neither "independent" nor are they a "voter". Not voting is a privilege in America and I exercised that privilege. Well, only if by "privilege" -you mean- "shirking your responsibility". Not voting is also a "privilege" in many totalitarian states.
|
Post #85,093
3/1/03 2:34:14 PM
|
Sure! the election after he stops breathing
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
\ufffdOmni Gaul Delenda est!\ufffd Ceasar
|
Post #85,096
3/1/03 2:41:28 PM
|
And that sounds like an election to you?
|
Post #85,126
3/1/03 9:22:24 PM
|
Oz folks correct me if I'm wrong, but...
in Oz, is there not a fine for potential voters who did not vote?
I, for one, see voting as an obligation and never miss voting in a regular election. Primaries are often a joke so I'm spotty there. Can't say I've always voted wisely, but I have split my votes on 3 parties more than once.
Alex
"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain
|
Post #85,172
3/2/03 3:43:29 AM
|
True, and they carry it but do give lots of warnings
|
