[smacintush]

A recent episode of Stossel interested me.

For those of you who don't know John Stossel, he was a consumer reporter on ABC who has gradually ascended from liberalism to a full-blown libertarian over his many years as a reporter. He now has a show on Fox Business Network.

The gist of his argument is that voting is serious, and if you are not educated in the issues and the candidates, you should just stay home.

It reminded me of what I told my daughter just before she turned 18.

We were at the kitchen table one day and she was talking about turning 18 and what that means, and she said "I can vote!" I replied; "Honey, every time I am watching a political show or a speech you say "Why are you watching that stupid show?", when I want to discuss issues you don't care, and if I suggest something for you to read you say, "That's gay." You may have the right to vote, but if you aren't interested in educating yourself you have no business voting. (or something to that effect)

It is a fallacy and a disservice to our country for rock stars and actors to pound it into young people's heads that it is their duty to vote and "voting is easy." Most young people don't give a damn about politics, at least not the details.

We tell people it's their "civic duty" to vote, and treat voter turnout as if is a football score. YEAH! BIGGER IS BETTER!" We would be much better off with a 20% voter turnout and a truly educated voter than we will ever be with a 90% voter turnout where 60% of them don't know what they hell they are doing.

Voting is not your duty, it is your right. One that you can choose to do or not to do. It is no more a duty than the right to free speech is a duty to speak freely. Voting is easy, responsible voting is not and responsible voting is what is needed. Not a higher score.

[ghporter]

Voting is a right. Voting can be performed by anyone with something close to 37ºC for a body temperature. It's a responsibility to vote in an educated manner, which is "hard work" for most people. So saying "it's a duty" would tend to rush people into buying the politicians' bill of goods and voting the way all the good sheep do. If they even noticed the whole "duty" thing in the first place.

I would like a LOT more people to vote in every single election. Instead, many leave the decision making to the hardline party faithful (who never had a genuine independent thought in their lives) and the crackpots. And the few, like me, who try to get their heads around the candidates and the issues.

Voting IS a serious matter. I'm glad that the "don't cares" stay home. But I'd like to see less of them and more people who DO care and who do something about it.

[AKcrab]

There is no reason to vote for the president. That vote truly counts for absolutely nothing.

Other than that, voting is a right, not a duty.

[Laminar]

What's the urban legend about the first name on the list in each category of the ballot is more likely to win the election?

[OAW]

Voting is a right, not a duty. There could very well be an election where the candidates are Satan on the one hand and Lucifer on the other. So you should not be obligated to vote for the Devil no matter which name he's going by. But OTOH, if you choose not to vote then you have right to complain.

As for being educated on the issues, that is always the goal. But outside of political junkies the average American voter is woefully uninformed when it comes to the actual issues. Most people's votes are driven by their ideology or overall world view as opposed to the particulars on policy. And when issues do come into play it's generally on a few hot button social issues if anything.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It is a fallacy and a disservice to our country for rock stars and actors to pound it into young people's heads that it is their duty to vote

Proper rock stars don't do that. Proper rock stars pound it into young people's head that all politicians are scum and that voting only encourages them.

Doof don't vote. It's a pointless frivolity which the masses think is an important task but really all it is is you giving some idiot power over you.

[olePigeon]

Voting makes more of an impact at the local level where you can make more of a difference. Presidential and congressional, not so much; especially congressional. The way they manipulate district lines, they have a 98% chance of being reelected.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Voting can be performed by anyone with something close to 37ºC for a body temperature.

Many an election has been won by voters who's body temp was 21ºC

[Uncle Skeleton]

If you're not going to vote, then politicians won't bother trying to do what you want. So it seems to me that if the candidates don't appeal to you, then refusing to vote would only make them appeal less (to you) in the next go-round.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you're not going to vote, then politicians won't bother trying to do what you want. So it seems to me that if the candidates don't appeal to you, then refusing to vote would only make them appeal less (to you) in the next go-round.

Yer problem here is that if you want to play the game, then you must realise that politicians are going to try to do what the average joe wants them to do... ...thus you must modify "what you want" to match that of the average if you're to stand any chance of getting it.

It's a stupid game. Why bother playing it?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Doof don't vote. It's a pointless frivolity which the masses think is an important task but really all it is is you giving some idiot power over you.

Some idiot is going to have power over you either way. If you want some say as to which idiot that is, vote. If you don't, don't.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Some idiot is going to have power over you either way.

No. There are ways and means of extracting yourself from the game so that nobody has power over you. Well, not unless they have nice boobies, that is.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. There are ways and means of extracting yourself from the game so that nobody has power over you. Well, not unless they have nice boobies, that is.

Riiiiight. So if some idiot came along and wanted to abolish all copyright law, that wouldn't affect you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yer problem here is that if you want to play the game, then you must realise that politicians are going to try to do what the average joe wants them to do... ...thus you must modify "what you want" to match that of the average if you're to stand any chance of getting it.

It's a stupid game. Why bother playing it?

You assume that only the winner has an impact. But the votes that go to the other candidates do get noticed, and their platforms are incorporated by others to appeal to those voters.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

A recent episode of Stossel interested me.

For those of you who don't know John Stossel, he was a consumer reporter on ABC who has gradually ascended from liberalism to a full-blown libertarian over his many years as a reporter. He now has a show on Fox Business Network.

The gist of his argument is that voting is serious, and if you are not educated in the issues and the candidates, you should just stay home.

It reminded me of what I told my daughter just before she turned 18.

We were at the kitchen table one day and she was talking about turning 18 and what that means, and she said "I can vote!" I replied; "Honey, every time I am watching a political show or a speech you say "Why are you watching that stupid show?", when I want to discuss issues you don't care, and if I suggest something for you to read you say, "That's gay." You may have the right to vote, but if you aren't interested in educating yourself you have no business voting. (or something to that effect)

It is a fallacy and a disservice to our country for rock stars and actors to pound it into young people's heads that it is their duty to vote and "voting is easy." Most young people don't give a damn about politics, at least not the details.

We tell people it's their "civic duty" to vote, and treat voter turnout as if is a football score. YEAH! BIGGER IS BETTER!" We would be much better off with a 20% voter turnout and a truly educated voter than we will ever be with a 90% voter turnout where 60% of them don't know what they hell they are doing.

Voting is not your duty, it is your right. One that you can choose to do or not to do. It is no more a duty than the right to free speech is a duty to speak freely. Voting is easy, responsible voting is not and responsible voting is what is needed. Not a higher score.

Let me guess, the bulk of these ignorant ill-informed voters are liberals?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Let me guess, the bulk of these ignorant ill-informed voters are liberals?

More likely the "Keep your goddamned government hands off my Medicare!" crowd I'd say.

OAW

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

More likely the "Keep your goddamned government hands off my Medicare!" crowd I'd say.

OAW

Despite the inanity of that article, yeah, we'd agree.

Originally Posted by ort888 

Let me guess, the bulk of these ignorant ill-informed voters are liberals?

Oh yeah, and libruls 'cuz there stoopid.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Originally Posted by ort888 

Let me guess, the bulk of these ignorant ill-informed voters are liberals?

Oh yeah, and libruls 'cuz there stoopid.

As far as I've seen, "ignorant, ill-informed voters" are from all parties/ideologies, and think they're doing a good thing by voting in the first place. The problem is that they're just voting based on cheap TV commercials and some jerk that calls 'em at home to encourage them to vote for this fleabag over this other fleabag. They haven't done much more than seen those TV ads. They often haven't even looked at newspaper coverage of the election. As I said earlier, smart voting is hard work and it takes a lot of time and effort to make good choices among who's on the ballot.

'Round here, there are thousands of "ignorant, ill-informed" voters who simply buy what their local party organizers (both parties) tell them. These are the hard-core partisan voters who fill the polling places when they first open. These are the people who decide elections in Texas, often by simply bothering to vote for their party's candidate in the primaries.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Riiiiight. So if some idiot came along and wanted to abolish all copyright law, that wouldn't affect you?

If you have enough money, you can get away with anything.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

It's a right -and one that can be taken away. But I'd add the caveat that it is a duty to be informed about what one is actually voting for.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's a right -and one that can be taken away. But I'd add the caveat that it is a duty to be informed about what one is actually voting for.

...or voting against. I often wind up doing it that way. No candidate has enough going for him/her to warrant getting my vote, but the opponent has enough against him/her to warrant shifting my vote to someone else.

Unfortunately in the upcoming election, I have two bad choices for governor. I'll have to do a lot of homework to decide whether I want to vote against "Governor Good Hair" or against "Damaged Goods."

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you have enough money, you can get away with anything.

Yeah, that's not lost on me. But if the source of said money is cut off, all bets are off.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Unfortunately in the upcoming election, I have two bad choices for governor. I'll have to do a lot of homework to decide whether I want to vote against "Governor Good Hair" or against "Damaged Goods."

Same thing in California, only the choice is between "Previous Train Wreck" and "Nutmeg".

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Unfortunately in the upcoming election, I have two bad choices for governor. I'll have to do a lot of homework to decide whether I want to vote against "Governor Good Hair" or against "Damaged Goods."

The lesser of two-evils option is not realy an option. When you only have a choice between crap and vomit, a vote against crap is still a vote for vomit.

If they really want to see a higher voter turnout and how the electorate really feels they should add a "none of the above" option to every ballot. I know I'd show up to check that box.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Same thing in California, only the choice is between "Previous Train Wreck" and "Nutmeg".

I thought her new nickname was "The Whore?"

[BadKosh]

its important to vote in the spirit of what our founding fathers envisioned. Small, efficient government that has been limited in how much they can interfere in our daily lives. What we have now is the opposite. Voting has more impact at the state and local level for a reason. The states were to have more power than the feds. We are the UNITED STATES of america after all. The states should be allowed to configure themselves to best utilize the people and resources in their states to the citizens advantage. Unions and such are a detriment.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The lesser of two-evils option is not realy an option. When you only have a choice between crap and vomit, a vote against crap is still a vote for vomit.

If they really want to see a higher voter turnout and how the electorate really feels they should add a "none of the above" option to every ballot. I know I'd show up to check that box.

In the 1980 science fiction/alternate universe novel by L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach, all ballots have "none of the above is acceptable" as an option. At one point the main character is taken on a tour of the U.S. Capital's hall of presidential portraits; the guide stops at an empty frame that contains the words "None Of The Above Is Acceptable," and notes this was "maybe our finest hour." Of course in our society this would be workable only in a fashion somewhat altered from the novel-we'd have to run a whole new election of the majority chose "none of the above." But I still like the idea.

[el chupacabra]

i think powerful people want the majority of stupid people to vote. It makes marketing much easier.