"majority" was a vindication of his fiscal policy

there are plenty of people who do not vote because they feel like their vote is worthless in their non "battle state". But everyone has the RIGHT to have an opinion, and they can express it anyway they want. Voting or not voting has no effect on that right. Trying to suppress the first amendment is small minded in general.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ziggy said:
there are plenty of people who do not vote because they feel like their vote is worthless in their non "battle state".
Click to expand...
I'd argue that those people are missing the point a little, because there is a lot more on the ballot than the presidential election, and those other things are of far greater local significance. Maybe they don't care about those, but they probably ought to reconsider that stance if so.

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of valid reasons for abstaining. Those who choose to do so needn't have the validity of their opinions assaulted on those grounds. And just because they have not formed an opinion at the time of voting, doesn't mean they can't continue or begin to form one afterwards.

 
zoogies said:
That said, I'm sure there are plenty of valid reasons for abstaining. Those who choose to do so needn't have the validity of their opinions assaulted on those grounds.
Click to expand...
They have the right not to vote. I have the right to assault their opinion on whatever grounds I choose.

 
Sure, I can agree with that. Although "You didn't vote, so your opinion doesn't count" isn't really an assault on the opinion so much as it is an ad hominem potshot at the person, and unrelated to the opinion itself. [You don't do this, though, as is evident from all you've contributed to these forums. Just to be clear ;) ]

If that's all it is, then I see it as a weak attempt at preventing discussion from happening, when it should be encouraged, on all fronts. Whether someone voted, or didn't, they should be encouraged to be engaged with issues, and encouraging participation in these kinds of discussions is one of the best avenues for that.

If the ultimate goal is to promote voting and civic participation, shouldn't everyone - whether they voted or not - be welcomed into the debate? So that at the least, they might become passionate enough about certain things to vote the next time around.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ideally we'd modify the voting process so those conscientious objectors wouldn't abstain on moral grounds, so those who feel they are too uninformed to cast a meaningful vote know enough to be sure in what they're choosing, and so that it would be easy enough to vote that everyone would do it without feeling there are too many obstacles in the way.

That would take care of about 75% of those who choose not to vote, yet still complain, I think. We could never cure laziness in those who simply won't inform themselves, or who won't go out and do something so simple. But those people are likely lost causes anyway.

But regardless, there is far less nobility in not voting, yet bitching, than there is in simply voting. Men and women have died for over two centuries to guarantee people the right to vote. Failing to vote is a poor repayment of their sacrifice, and no amount of moralizing will ever convince me that these people have done something laudable by staying home on election day.

 
Yeah, I agree with you. If you have the ability to vote -- and you both care and are decisively opinionated -- and then you don't, then I don't find that to be something that makes a lot of sense. I can empathize with the criticism or frustration one might want to express towards people who do that.

On the other hand, the idea in general of "don't vote, don't participate in discussion" is what I didn't like. And there are a number of people who may find themselves undecided, for example, about certain issues. I think I'm ok with someone who looks at it and says, "You know, I don't really know on this one. Let's see how it plays out. As I learn more and see more, I may start to form a stronger opinion." And I think that's fine, and those people should be absolutely encouraged -- as everyone -- to hop into the discussion at any time of their choosing.

Mostly unrelated note, in my Political Science course I took at college there was some sort of argument made about maximizing voter participation not being an ideal, or something strange and un-intuitive like that. I can't remember the exact context anymore, though...I'll have to try and dig something up about it. It was a pretty mathematically based course, so it wasn't from a philosophical angle. Wish I could remember!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe that it is bad if a small portion of the population is voting and deciding elections. It alway amazes me how few people vote. I'm going on memory here but of the roughly 25,000 people who live in my county, there were only something like 5,000 votes cast. Now, I understand that a portion of those people aren't old enough but still, take those out and that is a small amount voting.

Voting needs to be made easy, accessable and fair. All the problems in places like Florida need to be fixed IMMEDIATELY. There is no excuse for that.

However, I don't get heartbroken that uninformed people don't vote. I believe the only thing worse than someone NOT voting is someone voting that has absolutely no clue on the issues.

That doesn't mean people who disagree with me. You can be very well informed and just see the world differently than me. It seriously means people who have absolutely no clue. This could be everything from people who just don't understand to people who are extreme elderly without the ability to make a decision to people who just simply don't care.

All of these people should have the right to vote and that freedom should be made available to them. But, if they don't, that isn't a bad thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I chose not to vote for regents, school board positions, and things like that because I felt I wasn't informed well enough. Does that count?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Naw, those don't count. You at least went to the polling place and cast one for the prez. So you voted. You're not total slackers. :lol:

 
NUance said:
Naw, those don't count. You at least went to the polling place and cast one for the prez. So you voted. You're not total slackers. :lol:
Click to expand...
Gee thanks! lol

carlfense said:
ZRod said:
I chose not to vote for regents, school board positions, and things like that because I felt I wasn't informed well enough. Does that count?
Click to expand...
Same here. Also, I didn't vote against the judges that I don't know.
Click to expand...
I voted for all of them, hadn't heard anything negative and they all had a favorable rating on the state's site from the lawyers and such.

 
Back
Top