6 ms·

By not voting, you're responsible for whoever gets elected. Silence is complicity.

bh42222 15y ago
Silence is complicity. This is bad argument. What if neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote? What if due to a very ancient but rather simple system, third party candidates don't stand a chance? What if it would be far more effective to lobby than to vote if you want change? I could just as easily argue that voting legitimizes a broken system in need of radical reform.
- nddrylliog 15y ago
  I don't know how it works in the USA, but in France, you can vote "blank". This is what you do when no candidate fits your view. It's better than abstention because it still counts in the stats (and might prevent a candidate from gaining absolute majority)
  - phtrivier 15y ago
    Actually, in France, in most elections if you vote 'blank' (leaving the envelopp empty in the ballot), it will be considered the same as abstention (not showing up at all for the vote). There is a recurring debate about whether the two things should be counted differently (and if so - how). This is the kind of 'recurring debates' that we French people love - at least when discussing that we're not talking about serious issues :P
- melvinram 15y ago
  neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote 2 part reply: 1) The neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote argument is valid but should be only be used on a rare instance. For example, in the last presidential election, the 2 final candidates may have not been perfect but it's hard to claim they were both not fit to be presidents, especially given they were both chosen among many others during the primaries, which brings me to my second point. 2) At least here in the US, there are the primaries. Usually the 2 candidates are the products of early voting. If you don't vote, they don't have to appeal to you. If you vote, they have to appeal to you. Over time, the political "market" steers towards those who vote. "People get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Toqueville
- melvinram 15y ago
  A friend gave me a decent example/analogy to illustrate my point: Let's say you're on the Supreme Court and a case is brought before you that is very hairy and frankly, you don't think a clear guilty or not guilty judgement would be right since there is so much gray area to it so you decide, you're not going to give a verdict. You're one of 9 justices and 3 others decide to do exactly what you're doing: absence from providing their vote on guilty or not guilty. Do you really think that the 4 justices who didn't cast their verdict didn't affect the results?
nextparadigms 15y ago
I know what you mean, but what if you hate both (all) choices? I really think people should have a "I don't want any of the above" option. At least that way they and everyone else will be able to see how many people are not happy about the current leading parties, or about what the parties are currently trying to do.
- phlux 15y ago
  That should be an option, which, if it won - would require a whole new set of candidates be chosen.
- noahth 15y ago
  There were 4 third-party tickets in 2008 which were on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the presidency, and about a dozen more that appeared on the ballot in at least a few states. If you really don't like any of those either, perhaps you should get involved in helping a candidate you do support get on the ballot in your state. There are plenty of other ways to become involved and have an influence, however small. Not liking the choices is not a good excuse for not participating. (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_i...)
burgerbrain 15y ago
When the choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwhich, why does it matter if I don't vote?
- gavingmiller 15y ago
  I'd like to see spoiled ballots counted in elections. That way those that want to vote - but don't believe in their candidates - could be heard in some fashion.
  - jacques_chester 15y ago
    We do this in Australia. The Electoral Commission and its state-level equivalents publish "Informal votes" as part of the results. They are counted as part of the total turnout, but obviously do not go to a particular candidate. In practice many Australians use these to lodge none-of-the-above votes.
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  Yes. One is the encumbant, vote against that one. One is the opponent, vote for that one. Here's the deal, politicians that aren't in office have no power, no fun, and no reason to live. So they desparately seek "being in office." (often times by making silly promises but that is another comment) Now if you have a choice between a giant douche (GD) and a turd sandwich (TS) and you always vote against the incumbent. Then one of them (and often both of them) will start changing their behavior so that if they get into office they would stay there. You have the power to modify their behavior, use it. Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%. So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your district?) they will create a better government for everyone. They use a simple rule: 1) Person in office is doing a 'good' job? Vote for him 2) Person in office is doing a 'bad' job? Vote against him It doesn't matter who is running against them or their qualifications. Because, like evolution, this system has its own fitness function (the 10% group think they are doing a 'good' job) which anyone running will quickly come to realize determines if they stay in office. You can even start a campaign "I'm one of the 10% making a better government for you." And when you talk to your elected officials, and candidates for office, let them know the criteria you are using to determine 'good' and what it will take to stay in office. The only way to defeat this system is with outright vote fraud which, as intelligent people, you should be able to help the election commission detect. No amount of special interests, no amount of campaign money, no amount of lying to the stupid people will work. So use this system and always vote. It always matters.
keane 15y ago
I am reminded of the bit by George Carlin: "I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." http://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk http://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

Silence is complicity. This is bad argument. What if neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote? What if due to a very ancient but rather simple system, third party candidates don't stand a chance? What if it would be far more effective to lobby than to vote if you want change? I could just as easily argue that voting legitimizes a broken system in need of radical reform.

nddrylliog 15y ago
I don't know how it works in the USA, but in France, you can vote "blank". This is what you do when no candidate fits your view. It's better than abstention because it still counts in the stats (and might prevent a candidate from gaining absolute majority)
- phtrivier 15y ago
  Actually, in France, in most elections if you vote 'blank' (leaving the envelopp empty in the ballot), it will be considered the same as abstention (not showing up at all for the vote). There is a recurring debate about whether the two things should be counted differently (and if so - how). This is the kind of 'recurring debates' that we French people love - at least when discussing that we're not talking about serious issues :P
melvinram 15y ago
neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote 2 part reply: 1) The neither candidate is remotely fit for your vote argument is valid but should be only be used on a rare instance. For example, in the last presidential election, the 2 final candidates may have not been perfect but it's hard to claim they were both not fit to be presidents, especially given they were both chosen among many others during the primaries, which brings me to my second point. 2) At least here in the US, there are the primaries. Usually the 2 candidates are the products of early voting. If you don't vote, they don't have to appeal to you. If you vote, they have to appeal to you. Over time, the political "market" steers towards those who vote. "People get the government they deserve" - Alexis de Toqueville
melvinram 15y ago
A friend gave me a decent example/analogy to illustrate my point: Let's say you're on the Supreme Court and a case is brought before you that is very hairy and frankly, you don't think a clear guilty or not guilty judgement would be right since there is so much gray area to it so you decide, you're not going to give a verdict. You're one of 9 justices and 3 others decide to do exactly what you're doing: absence from providing their vote on guilty or not guilty. Do you really think that the 4 justices who didn't cast their verdict didn't affect the results?

nextparadigms 15y ago

I know what you mean, but what if you hate both (all) choices? I really think people should have a "I don't want any of the above" option. At least that way they and everyone else will be able to see how many people are not happy about the current leading parties, or about what the parties are currently trying to do.

phlux 15y ago
That should be an option, which, if it won - would require a whole new set of candidates be chosen.
noahth 15y ago
There were 4 third-party tickets in 2008 which were on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the presidency, and about a dozen more that appeared on the ballot in at least a few states. If you really don't like any of those either, perhaps you should get involved in helping a candidate you do support get on the ballot in your state. There are plenty of other ways to become involved and have an influence, however small. Not liking the choices is not a good excuse for not participating. (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_i...)

burgerbrain 15y ago

When the choices are a giant douche and a turd sandwhich, why does it matter if I don't vote?

gavingmiller 15y ago
I'd like to see spoiled ballots counted in elections. That way those that want to vote - but don't believe in their candidates - could be heard in some fashion.
- jacques_chester 15y ago
  We do this in Australia. The Electoral Commission and its state-level equivalents publish "Informal votes" as part of the results. They are counted as part of the total turnout, but obviously do not go to a particular candidate. In practice many Australians use these to lodge none-of-the-above votes.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
Yes. One is the encumbant, vote against that one. One is the opponent, vote for that one. Here's the deal, politicians that aren't in office have no power, no fun, and no reason to live. So they desparately seek "being in office." (often times by making silly promises but that is another comment) Now if you have a choice between a giant douche (GD) and a turd sandwich (TS) and you always vote against the incumbent. Then one of them (and often both of them) will start changing their behavior so that if they get into office they would stay there. You have the power to modify their behavior, use it. Many elections are won by a difference of less than 10%. So if the 10% of the electorate can choose to play this game (is there 1 in 10 intelligent people in your district?) they will create a better government for everyone. They use a simple rule: 1) Person in office is doing a 'good' job? Vote for him 2) Person in office is doing a 'bad' job? Vote against him It doesn't matter who is running against them or their qualifications. Because, like evolution, this system has its own fitness function (the 10% group think they are doing a 'good' job) which anyone running will quickly come to realize determines if they stay in office. You can even start a campaign "I'm one of the 10% making a better government for you." And when you talk to your elected officials, and candidates for office, let them know the criteria you are using to determine 'good' and what it will take to stay in office. The only way to defeat this system is with outright vote fraud which, as intelligent people, you should be able to help the election commission detect. No amount of special interests, no amount of campaign money, no amount of lying to the stupid people will work. So use this system and always vote. It always matters.

keane 15y ago

I am reminded of the bit by George Carlin: "I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." http://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk http://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]