9 ms·

personally I don't vote for 3 reasons: 1. my vote doesn't matter. I live in a 100% blue state, it'll go Democrat no matter what. So whether I decide to vote de

by vaksel 16y ago

personally I don't vote for 3 reasons: 1. my vote doesn't matter. I live in a 100% blue state, it'll go Democrat no matter what. So whether I decide to vote democrat or republican or green, my vote really won't matter. + the redestricting is always aimed at propping up small states. Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators? 2. the system is broken, there are no good politicians. There is no incentive for them to tell the truth or stick to campaign promises, so they don't. 3. it's too much of a hassle. If we can have a day off for Columbus day, I don't see why we can't have a day off for something as important as voting. And why does it have to be a day? Make it a 3 day weekend, so everyone gets a chance to vote. And voting should be easier, I don't see why I can't vote online...sure there might be some fraud, but surely it's possible to limit that, using a centralized voting website.

Retric 16y ago
Who you vote for is less important than the fact you vote. EX: Medicare is a direct result of a high percentage of older people voting. Even if you think Medicare is a bad idea, it’s really hard to get elected if you piss off the elderly.
- vaksel 16y ago
  voting is pointless until we get run off elections. 3rd parties that would have long ago become prominent in U.S. with runoff elections are still stuck with less than 1% of vote, because the public isn't voting for their best interests, but are instead forced to vote to stop the other guy from getting power. the democrats of today, are the republicans of just 10 years ago...and they get called socialists by the current crop of GOP. Why the shift to the right? Because they know they'll always have the Democrat vote, so they ignore them and shift to the right in order to get a few more independents.
  - Retric 16y ago
    In our system voting is less about picking the winner than scaring the winner into considering your opinion. Democrats in Red states are aften more conservative than Republicans in Red states.
mseebach 16y ago
> Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators? Slightly off topic, but I'll bite: Because democracy is much more about protecting minorities than ensuring the majority is in charge. If Delaware and other small states were only ever represented on the federal level in proportion to their population, only issues that Texas and California cares about would ever be taken up.
- vaksel 16y ago
  the problem I have is that it's never a single state getting proportion. They always band together. So California with millions of voters become insignificant, when 10 states with combined total of 500,000 voters band together. That's why we have more subsidies for corn production than science research. I'm sorry, but 10 states in the boonies with no people, should not be able to dictate policy to California. Crap like that is exactly why California ends up subsidizing half the red states, who then turn around and vilify it every chance they get.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Well, as a resident of one of the red states that has our budget under control (ND - surplus), I don't think California's problems are of our doing. Unions in California shouldn't dictate policy to other states (and it looks like the other states are going to foot CA's bill). If we didn't have the current system, only about 20 cities would be campaigned in for the Presidency. Also, given the bill a NY Rep tried to pass a couple of years ago, we wouldn't be growing any crops in this country (eco bill - massive urban support). The House is where population matters and is the origin of every budget. The House is where the population is considered and the Senate is for state considerations.
    - vaksel 16y ago
      Funny you should say that since North Dakota is the second biggest leech in this country. You guys get $2.03 for every dollar you send. (2nd highest in the nation after DC) California could balance it's budgets too, if it got double what it paid in federal taxes every year.
gyardley 16y ago
California and Delaware both get two senators because the United States is a federation of states, and when the Constitution was written many of the Framers argued that each state, being sovereign, should have equal representation. This has nothing to do with redistricting.
maukdaddy 16y ago
That's why there are TWO chambers. House gives you representation based on population while Senate give you equal representation. Checks and balances.
jamesteow 16y ago
1: Point taken. 2: Really? So what about the ones that promote causes you care about? E.g. I care about net neutrality. There are politicians who care about these things and try to advance legislation aligning with these things. Saying all politicians are bad is just simplistic. 3: It takes like... one hour (if at all) out of the day. You can also mail your vote in. I'll agree that I'd prefer online voting, but it's one action in two years.
anthuswilliams 16y ago
Finally, someone after my own heart. I don't vote, not because I feel my vote is worthless, but because I resent the claim that there is a choice to be made. Democrats and Republicans talk like they hate each other, but once elected they pretty much pass the same sorts of policies. It's in these politicians' best interest for people to get out and vote because it confers a veneer of legitimacy. But if a dictator holds an election in which he is the only candidate allowed to run, I would consider it a moral obligation to boycott the election. Similarly when there are two candidates who are, for all intents and purposes, equally undesirable, I refuse to vote for either. Of course, if I were less lazy, I would investigate independent parties. But I don't feel these parties are fairly represented. For instance, the Democratic Party commonly sues to keep the Green Party off the ballot in a number of states. If everyone ignores this injustice and votes anyway, it appears as though the election was won fair and square. Someone else on this thread pointed out that not voting is a vote. I feel the same. People attribute the low voting rate among Americans to an apathetic citizenry, but I think it can be better attributed to a broken system. I will not evaluate two poisons to elect the most nutritious. I won't do it.
dkl 16y ago
The older I get, the more I think humans really have little common sense. It's clearly not necessary for the modern world we live in, because it is used so seldom. You've constructed reasons not to vote, but you've left out the most important one in your reasoning: if everyone thought like you, we'd be giving absolute control to a small group of people. How do you think that would work out? Every day I watch people make bad decisions for seemingly very good reasons. They are still bad decisions, though, and the key flaw is they either massively elevated an unimportant factor in the decision, or just didn't even consider the important factors. What's strange, though, when this is pointed out to most people, they ignore the advice, sure in themselves that their process was correct. After the fact, they still have justifications about their decision, even if the prior stated flaws in their process turned out to be correct. It just amazes me.
spinlock 16y ago
I think that voting for third party candidates is a great way to move a cause forward if you live in a state (or district) that is locked into one of the parties. If you care about the environment, vote for the green party. You won't change the outcome of the election but what you will change is the issues that the parties run on in the next election. For instance, if the Republicans lose your state by 5% but they see that the Green party won 2% of the vote, they will try to get that 2%. They will do this by adopting the Green Party's platform (third parties are usually very narrow so one of the big two can co-opt their entire platform). Now, you have a major party that is pushing for your agenda and you did it by voting in an election where "you vote doesn't count."

by vaksel 16y ago

Retric 16y ago

Who you vote for is less important than the fact you vote. EX: Medicare is a direct result of a high percentage of older people voting. Even if you think Medicare is a bad idea, it’s really hard to get elected if you piss off the elderly.

vaksel 16y ago
voting is pointless until we get run off elections. 3rd parties that would have long ago become prominent in U.S. with runoff elections are still stuck with less than 1% of vote, because the public isn't voting for their best interests, but are instead forced to vote to stop the other guy from getting power. the democrats of today, are the republicans of just 10 years ago...and they get called socialists by the current crop of GOP. Why the shift to the right? Because they know they'll always have the Democrat vote, so they ignore them and shift to the right in order to get a few more independents.
- Retric 16y ago
  In our system voting is less about picking the winner than scaring the winner into considering your opinion. Democrats in Red states are aften more conservative than Republicans in Red states.

mseebach 16y ago

> Why does California and Delaware both get 2 senators? Slightly off topic, but I'll bite: Because democracy is much more about protecting minorities than ensuring the majority is in charge. If Delaware and other small states were only ever represented on the federal level in proportion to their population, only issues that Texas and California cares about would ever be taken up.

vaksel 16y ago
the problem I have is that it's never a single state getting proportion. They always band together. So California with millions of voters become insignificant, when 10 states with combined total of 500,000 voters band together. That's why we have more subsidies for corn production than science research. I'm sorry, but 10 states in the boonies with no people, should not be able to dictate policy to California. Crap like that is exactly why California ends up subsidizing half the red states, who then turn around and vilify it every chance they get.
- protomyth 16y ago
  Well, as a resident of one of the red states that has our budget under control (ND - surplus), I don't think California's problems are of our doing. Unions in California shouldn't dictate policy to other states (and it looks like the other states are going to foot CA's bill). If we didn't have the current system, only about 20 cities would be campaigned in for the Presidency. Also, given the bill a NY Rep tried to pass a couple of years ago, we wouldn't be growing any crops in this country (eco bill - massive urban support). The House is where population matters and is the origin of every budget. The House is where the population is considered and the Senate is for state considerations.
  - vaksel 16y ago
    Funny you should say that since North Dakota is the second biggest leech in this country. You guys get $2.03 for every dollar you send. (2nd highest in the nation after DC) California could balance it's budgets too, if it got double what it paid in federal taxes every year.

gyardley 16y ago

California and Delaware both get two senators because the United States is a federation of states, and when the Constitution was written many of the Framers argued that each state, being sovereign, should have equal representation. This has nothing to do with redistricting.

maukdaddy 16y ago

That's why there are TWO chambers. House gives you representation based on population while Senate give you equal representation. Checks and balances.

jamesteow 16y ago

1: Point taken. 2: Really? So what about the ones that promote causes you care about? E.g. I care about net neutrality. There are politicians who care about these things and try to advance legislation aligning with these things. Saying all politicians are bad is just simplistic. 3: It takes like... one hour (if at all) out of the day. You can also mail your vote in. I'll agree that I'd prefer online voting, but it's one action in two years.

anthuswilliams 16y ago

Finally, someone after my own heart. I don't vote, not because I feel my vote is worthless, but because I resent the claim that there is a choice to be made. Democrats and Republicans talk like they hate each other, but once elected they pretty much pass the same sorts of policies. It's in these politicians' best interest for people to get out and vote because it confers a veneer of legitimacy. But if a dictator holds an election in which he is the only candidate allowed to run, I would consider it a moral obligation to boycott the election. Similarly when there are two candidates who are, for all intents and purposes, equally undesirable, I refuse to vote for either. Of course, if I were less lazy, I would investigate independent parties. But I don't feel these parties are fairly represented. For instance, the Democratic Party commonly sues to keep the Green Party off the ballot in a number of states. If everyone ignores this injustice and votes anyway, it appears as though the election was won fair and square. Someone else on this thread pointed out that not voting is a vote. I feel the same. People attribute the low voting rate among Americans to an apathetic citizenry, but I think it can be better attributed to a broken system. I will not evaluate two poisons to elect the most nutritious. I won't do it.

dkl 16y ago

The older I get, the more I think humans really have little common sense. It's clearly not necessary for the modern world we live in, because it is used so seldom. You've constructed reasons not to vote, but you've left out the most important one in your reasoning: if everyone thought like you, we'd be giving absolute control to a small group of people. How do you think that would work out? Every day I watch people make bad decisions for seemingly very good reasons. They are still bad decisions, though, and the key flaw is they either massively elevated an unimportant factor in the decision, or just didn't even consider the important factors. What's strange, though, when this is pointed out to most people, they ignore the advice, sure in themselves that their process was correct. After the fact, they still have justifications about their decision, even if the prior stated flaws in their process turned out to be correct. It just amazes me.

spinlock 16y ago

I think that voting for third party candidates is a great way to move a cause forward if you live in a state (or district) that is locked into one of the parties. If you care about the environment, vote for the green party. You won't change the outcome of the election but what you will change is the issues that the parties run on in the next election. For instance, if the Republicans lose your state by 5% but they see that the Green party won 2% of the vote, they will try to get that 2%. They will do this by adopting the Green Party's platform (third parties are usually very narrow so one of the big two can co-opt their entire platform). Now, you have a major party that is pushing for your agenda and you did it by voting in an election where "you vote doesn't count."