5 ms·

I won't be voting. I am a libertarian so my vote doesn't matter anyway. Plus I feel that not voting sends a stronger signal about how I feel about our system of

I won't be voting. I am a libertarian so my vote doesn't matter anyway. Plus I feel that not voting sends a stronger signal about how I feel about our system of government. If more people don't vote it will be harder for them to pretend they have a mandate to raise taxes, give money to the banks, and start wars. The government is long beyond saving. If you vote you take some responsibility for the next war, the next bombing, the next threat to Iran, etc. I want no part in putting more blood on my hands. I realize most of you think it matters but think about this: when does your one vote ever matter? Has your vote ever decided anything? Have you ever been proud of all the actions of who you voted for? Instead of voting you are better off creating value in society by doing what many of you do already: create something that improves someone's life.

cabalamat 16y ago
> If more people don't vote it will be harder for them to pretend they have a mandate to raise taxes, give money to the banks, and start wars. No it won't, they'll just say people who didn't vote were apathetic.
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  I'm hoping that if enough people refuse to pay attention they'll just go away on their own.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    You may want to rethink this strategy, because this is not what's going to happen.
    - jswinghammer 16y ago
      Can you really say that voting has made things better?
      - afterburner 16y ago
        Way to correlate! I have to say, this type of attitude makes me suspicious. One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This might not apply to you, but I always wonder if these kinds of comments aren't just in support of that strategy.
        randallsquared 16y ago
        One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This implies that you believe that the other party (from whichever one you were thinking of) would always win if voting were mandatory. This seems like a result of interacting almost entirely with those of the party you favor, like people in 2004 who asserted that since no one they knew had voted for Bush, he must have won by fraud.
        afterburner 16y ago
        From bad correlation to a false conclusion and a straw man argument. You're a pro. There is plenty of room in the setup of US elections for one party to have an advantage when turnout is low but still have varied results from year to year and region to region even when voting is mandated. But more importantly, even when you can get 60% of the popular vote in a 100% turnout election, lower turnout can still increase this percentage if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out, resulting in more than 60% majority.
        randallsquared 16y ago
        if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out But you did say "people in general", not "people likely to vote for party X", so your statement only makes sense if you think people in general vote for party X, which is the same as saying that party X would certainly win if everyone voted. Maybe you misstated what you really meant to say, but I think the inference from what you actually did say was reasonable. I almost didn't read any further when you began accusing me of making up straw men and being a professional (troll, I assume?). That certainly was a neat trick. :)
  - jonpaul 16y ago
    Way to have a defeatist attitude. Keep hoping.
devmonk 16y ago
If you are a Libertarian, you should find and write-in your candidates, not stay home. If there is no known candidate, you should write in "Libertarian", if there is a space to do so. And if there is no Libertarian on the ballot, you should learn as much as you can about the candidates and vote for the ones that best match your set of values. Odds are that you lean either more towards the liberal social values side or the conservative fiscal values side, so there may be a Democrat, Independent, or Republican that leans similarly here and there that you could vote for.
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  I consider what you're describing to the equivalent of not voting anyway. There isn't a candidate in my state who I could feel good about voting for. I consider not voting to be a louder act of protest than voting for someone I half or quarter like.
  - callahad 16y ago
    How can your non-vote be a louder act of protest if it can't be distinguished from an apathetic non-vote?
    - jswinghammer 16y ago
      I consider those "apathetic" non-votes to be louder than voting as well. I don't mind being lumped in with those people who just can't be bothered to care. I sympathize with them.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  "If you are a Libertarian, you should find and write-in your candidates, not stay home" Actually, the LP is very good at getting on ballots, so write-ins are usually unnecessary for those who want to vote for them. However, can you put together a cogent argument why he should go to all that trouble just so you can skim over the section in the results showing that the Libertarian Party candidate for Congress got a handful of votes?

cabalamat 16y ago

> If more people don't vote it will be harder for them to pretend they have a mandate to raise taxes, give money to the banks, and start wars. No it won't, they'll just say people who didn't vote were apathetic.

jswinghammer 16y ago
I'm hoping that if enough people refuse to pay attention they'll just go away on their own.
- jrockway 16y ago
  You may want to rethink this strategy, because this is not what's going to happen.
  - jswinghammer 16y ago
    Can you really say that voting has made things better?
    - afterburner 16y ago
      Way to correlate! I have to say, this type of attitude makes me suspicious. One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This might not apply to you, but I always wonder if these kinds of comments aren't just in support of that strategy.
      - randallsquared 16y ago
        One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This implies that you believe that the other party (from whichever one you were thinking of) would always win if voting were mandatory. This seems like a result of interacting almost entirely with those of the party you favor, like people in 2004 who asserted that since no one they knew had voted for Bush, he must have won by fraud.
        afterburner 16y ago
        From bad correlation to a false conclusion and a straw man argument. You're a pro. There is plenty of room in the setup of US elections for one party to have an advantage when turnout is low but still have varied results from year to year and region to region even when voting is mandated. But more importantly, even when you can get 60% of the popular vote in a 100% turnout election, lower turnout can still increase this percentage if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out, resulting in more than 60% majority.
        randallsquared 16y ago
        if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out But you did say "people in general", not "people likely to vote for party X", so your statement only makes sense if you think people in general vote for party X, which is the same as saying that party X would certainly win if everyone voted. Maybe you misstated what you really meant to say, but I think the inference from what you actually did say was reasonable. I almost didn't read any further when you began accusing me of making up straw men and being a professional (troll, I assume?). That certainly was a neat trick. :)
- jonpaul 16y ago
  Way to have a defeatist attitude. Keep hoping.

devmonk 16y ago

If you are a Libertarian, you should find and write-in your candidates, not stay home. If there is no known candidate, you should write in "Libertarian", if there is a space to do so. And if there is no Libertarian on the ballot, you should learn as much as you can about the candidates and vote for the ones that best match your set of values. Odds are that you lean either more towards the liberal social values side or the conservative fiscal values side, so there may be a Democrat, Independent, or Republican that leans similarly here and there that you could vote for.

jswinghammer 16y ago
I consider what you're describing to the equivalent of not voting anyway. There isn't a candidate in my state who I could feel good about voting for. I consider not voting to be a louder act of protest than voting for someone I half or quarter like.
- callahad 16y ago
  How can your non-vote be a louder act of protest if it can't be distinguished from an apathetic non-vote?
  - jswinghammer 16y ago
    I consider those "apathetic" non-votes to be louder than voting as well. I don't mind being lumped in with those people who just can't be bothered to care. I sympathize with them.
Semiapies 16y ago
"If you are a Libertarian, you should find and write-in your candidates, not stay home" Actually, the LP is very good at getting on ballots, so write-ins are usually unnecessary for those who want to vote for them. However, can you put together a cogent argument why he should go to all that trouble just so you can skim over the section in the results showing that the Libertarian Party candidate for Congress got a handful of votes?