To the undecided voters

[Jenne]

I don't like it when people I like are cruelly opinionated to the exclusion of other perspectives.

I am very sorry for all the rude and insulting things I may have said that offended you and others ITT.  It wasn't my intent to do insult anyone.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Thank you. It wasn't my intention to insult anyone either. I'm sorry if my argument seemed personal.

[East Coast Hustle]

just to be "fair and balanced"--

ITT it's been said that not voting makes you a "screeching idiot" and a "dumbfuck" which I weigh as slightly more insulting than "hypocrite"

Nigel was being a bit callous, but I think she, like Jenne, just got a bit emotional from all the judgement and fingerpointing going on ITT about other people's political choices.

it was meant to be insulting.

don't get me wrong, I don't think people should be forced to vote. people have the right to be screeching idiots.

[East Coast Hustle]

Well, I guess I'm more directly sticking up for Jenne, not that she needs me to or anything.  Specifically because she said the following. 

No it's not, but it should never be applauded when people don't give a shit enough to do so, however.  I don't believe in persecution, but I will not laud them and say, "Oh, that's allright!" or "Cool man, you're so punk rock!" either.

I read her as saying, paraphrasing obviously, "do as you will, but, here is what I believe could be the consequences."  And that's kind of where I am.  And obviously not everyone is going to agree with that sentiment, but I don't think it is hypocritical, just an opinion on what not voting could mean.  But yes, I agree "screeching idiot" and "dumbfuck" are also going too far, as there are certainly those who don't vote based on principled positions.  I don't agree with those positions of course, but at least it is based on some thought-out reasoning as opposed to pure apathy and laziness. 

if your thought-out reasoning led you to the conclusion that you should not exercise your right to vote, then you ARE an idiot.

[Cain]

In Australia you're "forced" to vote.

Note: this not preclude you from ticking every box and spoiling the ballot, or never registering.  I actually think that's a fairly good system.  Apathetic people never register, pissed off people spoil their ballots and create markets for niche political parties who then become the butt of jokes on various satirical current affairs programs.  Everyone wins.

[East Coast Hustle]

yeah, if you don't vote you CAN complain...


...you'll just be a screeching idiot that no one should listen to.

and just to clarify, my original "screeching idiot" comment was directed at people who don't vote and then bitch about how things didn't go the way they wanted.

however, I am willing to expand the context to anyone who didn't vote out of apathy or who didn't vote out of some fucktarded idea that "voting only encourages the system, man!"

[Vene]

In Australia you're "forced" to vote.

Note: this not preclude you from ticking every box and spoiling the ballot, or never registering.  I actually think that's a fairly good system.  Apathetic people never register, pissed off people spoil their ballots and create markets for niche political parties who then become the butt of jokes on various satirical current affairs programs.  Everyone wins.

Cain, our mainstream parties already make satire obsolete, do you really want niche parties for the truly demented?

On second thought, that would be absolutely hilarious.

[Cainad (dec.)]

In Australia you're "forced" to vote.

Note: this not preclude you from ticking every box and spoiling the ballot, or never registering.  I actually think that's a fairly good system.  Apathetic people never register, pissed off people spoil their ballots and create markets for niche political parties who then become the butt of jokes on various satirical current affairs programs.  Everyone wins.

Cain, our mainstream parties already make satire obsolete, do you really want niche parties for the truly demented?

On second thought, that would be absolutely hilarious.

Is it too Pinealist for me to say that, as a Discordian, I would approve of this?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

don't get me wrong, I don't think people should be forced to vote. people have the right to be screeching idiots.

I know (and love) people who choose not to vote who are not screeching idiots, and I know people who do vote who are.

To each his own, IMO. People have their reasons, even if they may be ones you disagree with. If someone has no reason at all for not voting, perhaps they are not really equipped to vote anyway.

To refer back to the point that someone (don't remember who and don't feel like reading back ATM) was concerned about: how does one retain one's right to own guns if one does not vote?

Voting may help retain the right to own guns, but how do you protect your rights in a failing democracy when the elections are rigged? That's when gun ownership becomes a "use it or lose it" right. I am not necessarily advocating gun ownership, I am just pointing out that the same logic does apply, IF we are going to apply that logic.

Although that logic also presupposes that the people who DO vote are going to vote to strip voting rights of those who do not, which seems a flawed assumption.

[AFK]

To refer back to the point that someone (don't remember who and don't feel like reading back ATM) was concerned about: how does one retain one's right to own guns if one does not vote?

Voting may help retain the right to own guns, but how do you protect your rights in a failing democracy when the elections are rigged? That's when gun ownership becomes a "use it or lose it" right. I am not necessarily advocating gun ownership, I am just pointing out that the same logic does apply, IF we are going to apply that logic.

That doesn't make any sense.  If you're right to vote has been compromised or taken away, it's most likely the case that ALL of your rights are being violated and compromised.  So it's no longer about owning a gun as a right, it's something you are doing out of necessity regardless of the actual "right" of gun ownership.  The situation you are talking about is more a akin to having a gun to protect yourself from some government-gone-amok.  But when your government has gone amok.  The Constitution goes out the window. 

The bottom line is, that in a non-corrupt government, protecting your right to own guns WILL involve voting.  Whether it is supporting a candidate who supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, or voting for a Proposition or Referendum that supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  One of the precious few ways we have to protect our rights, legally, is to vote for people who will help protect our rights.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

This whole debate seems flawed to me.

"Vote or you can't complain." seems like a statement that can never be enforced in any manner. That is, we have no idea if the complainer voted, didn't vote... or who/what they voted for.

As an American, you have the right, not requirement or duty, to vote. You also have the right to freely speak about whatever you want. You also have the right to not speak. None of them are requirements or duties... just rights.

The right to freedom of speech doesn't say "You have the right to freedom of speech, as long as you voted in the last election, or as long as you're at least somewhat informed on the issues." As such, the right to speak freely, the right to voice your opinion is equal to your right to vote. One does not supersede the other. One is not a requirement of the other. In the end, unless someone happens to having not voted, we must rely on what they're saying, to find value or not... rather than what they did on some November day in 2008.

Further, I would argue that voting, while a wonderful right that a lot of people have sacrificed for, is not the MAJOR SUPER PWOERZ that are claimed. Nor is it a demand placed upon the citizen by the Constitution. In the first election in this country, 3 out of the 10 states didn't even bother to participate and only half of the ones that did participate held any sort of general poll on who should be elected. In my opinion, as Americans have become more lazy and more reliant on the government to Do For Them, they have created a false sense of importance around voting. Voting has become a symbol of being active in politics and community, rather than actually doing something. Every four years we wear a 'I Voted' sticker and think we're doing our part... and for the rest of those 47 Months, 3 weeks and 6 days, we can be completely oblivious.

I think we would be in much better shape if we tried for 100% community involvement, rather than 100% voter turnout.

[East Coast Hustle]

I never said that people shouldn't be ALLOWED to complain if they didn't vote, I just said they'd be screeching idiots for it.

I then explicitly stated that people have the right to be screeching idiots.

what's the problem?

[Cain]

The screeching idiots?

Idiots are normally a problem, if left alone with sharp objects.

[AFK]

The right to vote and free speech are not equal in one regard.  When you tell a Congressman, "You fucked up, I think you should get out of office", that Congressman is under no compulsion to listen to you and to abide by your decree.  However, when people use their vote to say "You fucked up, I think you should get out of office.  We want the new guy", said Congressman must abide and GTFO.  

Speech alone doesn't get things done.  Speech can be important in terms of helping to set the agenda, and getting issues into the public eye.  But in the end, if no one votes on the issues, or votes for those who will vote on the issues in Congress, nothing will get done.  If the US citizenry overwhelmingly wants Congress to go forward with stem-cell research, then the US citizenry needs to follow up with that will and vote for the appropriate Congressmen to undertake that endeavour.  It's all fine and dandy for people to want to have stem-cell research, but then if a bunch of Born-Again Conservatives get into office, well, that ain't gonna happen is it?  

And let's not forget the important state and local issues that are voted on.  It's easy to just focus on the Prez election and look at how insignificant one vote is.  But when it comes to whether or not to open a Casino in your town, whether or not to raise the mill rates, whether or not to close the local library, in those instances every vote is important and holds significant weight.  

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To refer back to the point that someone (don't remember who and don't feel like reading back ATM) was concerned about: how does one retain one's right to own guns if one does not vote?

Voting may help retain the right to own guns, but how do you protect your rights in a failing democracy when the elections are rigged? That's when gun ownership becomes a "use it or lose it" right. I am not necessarily advocating gun ownership, I am just pointing out that the same logic does apply, IF we are going to apply that logic.

That doesn't make any sense.  If you're right to vote has been compromised or taken away, it's most likely the case that ALL of your rights are being violated and compromised.  So it's no longer about owning a gun as a right, it's something you are doing out of necessity regardless of the actual "right" of gun ownership.  The situation you are talking about is more a akin to having a gun to protect yourself from some government-gone-amok.  But when your government has gone amok.  The Constitution goes out the window. 

The bottom line is, that in a non-corrupt government, protecting your right to own guns WILL involve voting.  Whether it is supporting a candidate who supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, or voting for a Proposition or Referendum that supports your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  One of the precious few ways we have to protect our rights, legally, is to vote for people who will help protect our rights.

But a government is less likely to run amok if it knows it's citizenry is armed, which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the main points in having the right to bear arms in the first place.

However, I have to confess I have very little interest in this argument, as my main issue here is with people namecalling and denigrating those who choose not to vote for whatever reason.  The "use your rights or lose them" argument really doesn't work with voting, as it assumes that somehow fewer voters automatically = a lower percentage of those who do vote are concerned about maintaining constitutional rights. As someone else pointed out in this thread, the 2000 and 2004 elections had VERY high turnouts, yet since then more of our right have been eroded than at any previous point in history.