Why I won't vote for anyone

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I haven't found a candidate yet who would make a good president.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I haven't found a candidate yet who would make a good president.

I am in complete agreement,. I will not vote for anyone either.

[apoger]

As much as I hate no voting... I find myself in the same position.

[Meadmaker]

But I think it is important to vote. I strongly encourage anyone who doesn't like the two major candidates to go and leave the President box blank. Right now, I believe I will vote for a third party candidate, which is basically the same thing as leaving the ballot blank.

And your vote matters more in the local races anyway. Even with the closest race in history for President, the balance was 531 votes. On a local race, a margin of that many votes is routine.

[crimresearch]

I'm going to vote for someone, although I resent having no effective choice...TweedleBush and TweedleKerry, or else someone who has no chance at all of winning...and 'protest' votes get about as much leveage as non-voters...welcome to the rank of disenfranchised

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
But I think it is important to vote. I strongly encourage anyone who doesn't like the two major candidates to go and leave the President box blank. Right now, I believe I will vote for a third party candidate, which is basically the same thing as leaving the ballot blank.

And your vote matters more in the local races anyway. Even with the closest race in history for President, the balance was 531 votes. On a local race, a margin of that many votes is routine.

There are no qualified candidates for my local races either. :(

[American]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I haven't found a candidate yet who would make a good president.

Sure you have.
http://www.reelgay.com/articlepix/barneyfrank.jpghttp://www.reelgay.com/coverpicts/21_11cover5.jpghttp://www.reelgay.com/NewFiles/march2002/liza/lizaw.jpgs/lizawfront.jpg

[Dorian Gray]

Just write in your favorite actor who played a president - Harrison Ford, Michael Douglas, Bill Pullman, Kevin Kline, Ronald Reagan.

It's fun!

Or, you could just vote according to who you think would make the best Vice President.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by American
Sure you have.
http://www.reelgay.com/articlepix/barneyfrank.jpghttp://www.reelgay.com/coverpicts/21_11cover5.jpghttp://www.reelgay.com/NewFiles/march2002/liza/lizaw.jpgs/lizawfront.jpg

Are those your boyfriends? I notice you got them from that gay site you frequent.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I haven't found a candidate yet who would make a good president.

then I sincerely think you should vote for the person you think would make the less worse President.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
then I sincerely think you should vote for the person you think would make the less worse President.

Nope. My vote must be earned. I won't throw it away.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Nope. My vote must be earned. I won't throw it away.

So, faced with two evils you will not choose the lesser, but will leave the choice to others?

How's this: you are definitely going to be the victim of a crime. You can choose which one, though. The possibilities are: having your wallet stolen or having your house burned down by an arsonist. You don't like either possibility and disapprove of criminals, so out of principle you let your neighbors decide for you. The majority decide they want to see your house burn.

By choosing not to choose, you achieve nothing except wasting your chance to make things marginally less worse.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
There are no qualified candidates for my local races either. :(

There are also a lot of Measures on the ballot.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
So, faced with two evils you will not choose the lesser, but will leave the choice to others?


The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Luke T.
There are also a lot of Measures on the ballot.

I do vote for those, when they interest me.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
There are no qualified candidates for my local races either. :(

Bummer.

But remember, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Or something like that.

[American]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Wow you must be a genius. Did you go to college?

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I do vote for those, when they interest me.

You'd sign any "proposition" you get at The Ramrod.

[HarryKeogh]

American and Central Scrutinizer...why don't you guys just f#ck each other already.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Then, in the absence of something completely and utterly good, you will not make any attempt to prevent the greater evil from befalling. In many ethical systems, refusal to prevent a greater evil is itself evil.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
American and Central Scrutinizer...why don't you guys just f#ck each other already.

Won't happen. He's gay, and I'm not. Plus, he's only 14.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Then, in the absence of something completely and utterly good, you will not make any attempt to prevent the greater evil from befalling. In many ethical systems, refusal to prevent a greater evil is itself evil.

Both choices are bad. It's impossible to measure which is worse.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Both choices are bad. It's impossible to measure which is worse.

I was merely pointing out that the lesser of two evils might indeed be the ethical choice as opposed to abstaining. If you hold them both as completely equal evils, then abstention would be ethically sound. Although in the case of the candidates, if you really think they're both equally evil in every way, you should then shift your analysis to the vice presidential candidate and vote based on them, since the possibility that a bad president could die and leave a lesser-of-two-evils VP is preferable to an equally bad president dying and leaving a greater-of-two-evils VP.

And if all four are exactly equally evil, you should vote for the pair with the greatest risk of dying soon.

[Doubt]

You should vote for the lesser of two evils.

1.) The damage done by the lesser of two evils should be easier to fix. (Yes, I know that is a generalization.)

2.) By not voting you are leaving the decision up to the rest of the electorate. Have you noticed that at least half the population is not very smart? You are leaving an important decision up to them. But go ahead and don’t vote if you think you are of below average intelligence.

3.) If you help vote an idiot into office you can still take comfort in knowing that you tried to make a difference. If you don’t vote and end up with an idiot then you should ask yourself what you could have done to stop it from happening.

4.) Apathy can change the world. But the end result always sucks.

5.) Polling firms collect data on those who vote. Future candidates will use this information to construct positions and design their campaigns. The dumber the electorate appears, the dumber the next campaign will be.

6.) Polling firms sometimes ask people why they don’t vote. Some political organizations use this information discourage certain types of people from voting. Don’t encourage that sort of negative conduct.

7.) A as citizen you have a right to not vote if you choose. As a human being you have the responsibility to try and make the world a better place. Leaving the election to others is not likely to be an effective form of protest. It will not change the status quo.

8.) Free nations get the government they deserve. By rejecting the opportunity to help select your own leadership you get exactly what you deserve.

9.) The glass is half full. The lesser of two evils will have the greater capacity to do good things.

10.) Use it or lose it. The best way to lose your rights is to let the other guy make decisions for you.

[HarryKeogh]

Doubt...excellent post. Love point #4 btw.

[American]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
American and Central Scrutinizer...why don't you guys just f#ck each other already.

OH MY GOD! HE JUST MISTOOK YOU FOR A GAY GUY, T.C.S.!

I bet you feel pretty stupid!!!!!!!!! :roll:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Doubt
You should vote for the lesser of two evils.

How do you figure out which evil is lesser than the other?

1.) The damage done by the lesser of two evils should be easier to fix. (Yes, I know that is a generalization.)

Not really. The blatant evils are easy to spot and to get people riled up against. It's the lesser, subtle evils that you really have to worry about.

2.) By not voting you are leaving the decision up to the rest of the electorate.

How is it the rest of the electorate's fault that the establishment parties have rigged the game to limit the options we have?

5.) Polling firms collect data on those who vote. Future candidates will use this information to construct positions and design their campaigns. The dumber the electorate appears, the dumber the next campaign will be.

So cast a blank ballot. That's what I did in 1994. Let them try and attribute that to apathy! Technically, I think you have voted; you just didn't favor any candidates.

8.) Free nations get the government they deserve.

Fine. Help turn this back into a free nation and then we'll discuss this.

10.) Use it or lose it. The best way to lose your rights is to let the other guy make decisions for you.

Not necessarily. One way to lose your rights is to comply with the system that is taking your rights away to begin with. And when you vote for a Democrat or a Republican, no matter which you think is lesser, you are voting for exactly that.

So don't vote—it only encourages them!

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Both choices are bad. It's impossible to measure which is worse.

Bingo!

My very real concerns, fueled by the latest news, of Republican legislation to neuter the judiciary, and destroy checks and balances, makes it impossible to vote for giving them more power via the executive branch.

And as a minority and a liberal activist, the Democrat's track record of hypocritically courting the minority vote and then acting just like the Republicans when put in power makes me unwilling to support any of their candidates.

And no one else is even trying to run a viable campaign, at least in the sense of having a kook-free zone.

Plus, voting splinter party DOES have an effect...it gets the Republicans AND the Democrats to try to prevent any splinter candidates from siphoning off votes, so they block them from the ballot...I predict more and more states slipping in legislation preventing even write in candidates soon...so any chance that somone decent and unbeholden to the powerful could run is going to be lost.

Not a single good answer that I can see.

[varwoche]

Central, are there individuals whom you wish were running or is this an across-the-board thing? What about prior elections?

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by shanek

Not really. The blatant evils are easy to spot and to get people riled up against. It's the lesser, subtle evils that you really have to worry about.


That's really true, isn't it. That kind of sums up why I would vote third party right now. Politically, I much favor Kerry over Bush, but there is something about him which just doesn't seem quite right, like there is a subtle evil festering in the Democratic party.

(I know, I know, some of you don't think it is very subtle.)

So your guy gets my vote. It's not like I have to worry about him being elected or anything, but making a statement that the country should be a little bit more free is a statement that I can live with.

[gnome]

Originally posted by crimresearch
My very real concerns, fueled by the latest news, of Republican legislation to neuter the judiciary, and destroy checks and balances, makes it impossible to vote for giving them more power via the executive branch.

And as a minority and a liberal activist, the Democrat's track record of hypocritically courting the minority vote and then acting just like the Republicans when put in power makes me unwilling to support any of their candidates.


Here's where I seem to differ... faced with the former, the latter seems much more tolerable. I would rather have a dissapointing, hypocritical pseudo-liberal than someone actually attacking historic checks and balances. For me the choice is easy.

[jj]

So, then, those of you who don't like the choices and who won't vote are content with giving into the extremists?

Do you think that's in any way in your own short or long term self-interest?

[Rocky]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
I haven't found a candidate yet who would make a good president.

I'll vote, just not for Bush or Kerry. I would consider Colin Powell or McCain.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by varwoche
Central, are there individuals whom you wish were running or is this an across-the-board thing? What about prior elections? Bump.

CS, I'm going to try to categorize non-voters. Let me know (if you wish) where you fall.

1) Simply don't care for no reason other than simply don't care
2) The chance that your one vote would actually decide the election is absurdly minute
3) Both candidates are losers, equally so, and/or the system is such that it doesn't matter, the outcome is the same
4) One candidate is bigger loser than the other; neither meet acceptable threshhold and the difference between the two doesn't warrant the effort.
5) Refuse to be part of the matrix for larger philisophical reasons

I care and I vote. I can't relate to #1 at all.

I can relate to #2, just based on statistical probabilities and because I'm lazy. (Though I'd still try to convince others to vote for my guy.)

I can relate to #3, with profound exceptions discussed below.

I can relate to #4 in only one respect: If the non-voter believes that not voting is the best way to effect significant change.

I can even relate to #5.

CS, assuming you are some combination of 2-5, here's the part I don't get: supreme court appointments.

From this flows church/state, privacy, roe v wade, etc, etc.

I cannot fathom this not mattering to a person who clearly is no fool.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by varwoche
Bump.

CS, I'm going to try to categorize non-voters. Let me know (if you wish) where you fall.

1) Simply don't care for no reason other than simply don't care
2) The chance that your one vote would actually decide the election is absurdly minute
3) Both candidates are losers, equally so, and/or the system is such that it doesn't matter, the outcome is the same
4) One candidate is bigger loser than the other; neither meet acceptable threshhold and the difference between the two doesn't warrant the effort.
5) Refuse to be part of the matrix for larger philisophical reasons

I care and I vote. I can't relate to #1 at all.

I can relate to #2, just based on statistical probabilities and because I'm lazy. (Though I'd still try to convince others to vote for my guy.)

I can relate to #3, with profound exceptions discussed below.

I can relate to #4 in only one respect: If the non-voter believes that not voting is the best way to effect significant change.

I can even relate to #5.

CS, assuming you are some combination of 2-5, here's the part I don't get: supreme court appointments.

From this flows church/state, privacy, roe v wade, etc, etc.

I cannot fathom this not mattering to a person who clearly is no fool.

#3 for sure, and when that is repeated year after year after year, it leads to #1. I can honestly say that I have no interest in anything 99.9% of politicians have to say.

Yes, I agree that SCOTUS nominations are important. There used to be a time when you could count on either party to nominate truly competent legal scholars. That was before Reagan allowed right wing fundy loonies to take over the Republican party, the resylt being embarassments like Clarence "pubic hair" Thomas. However, if you then vote for Kerry, how do you know that he won't nominate someone who is "soft on crime" from a legal standpoint - i.e anti-death penalty, etc...

So the way I look at it, and the way I live my life, is that whatever politicians do to "help" me, I will do what I need to do to route around it. I also subscribe to the school of thought that says if you were in a coma for 20 years, and then woke up and read the newspaper, you would not be able to tell which party was in power. The country basically runs itself. If the office was vacated tomorrow, and they didn't tell anyone, you would not notice a bit of difference in your day-to-day life. You would wake up, go to work, go to school, go to the gym, drink beer with your friends, etc...

I do vote for constutional ammendments, referendums, etc when they interest me. Because they are a simple yes/no vote, you don't have to deal with lying politicans. Should we legalize riverboat gambling - yes/no, etc...

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Rocky
I'll vote, just not for Bush or Kerry. I would consider Colin Powell or McCain.

Being from the same state, it doesn't really matter. Kerry has California in his pocket. Too many entitlements here to ignore the bidding of the government nipple.

I'm considering voting for Nader so I can listen to the Democrats whine about their votes being stolen by Nader for the next four years.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by varwoche
Central, are there individuals whom you wish were running or is this an across-the-board thing? What about prior elections?

There are people I admire that would never run because they could never get elected. Warren Buffett, Frank Zappa (when he was alive obviously), Steve Jobs, Richard Branson (obviously can't run)...

I admired Jesse The Body Ventura, because of all the times I saw him on TV, talking to Tim Russert, Chris Mathews, I NEVER once saw him duck a question or give one of those phony non-answers, like most of them do. Even that guy from Ohio(?), Trafficant, with the bad hair. Sure he was loony, and I really don't know where he stood on the issues, but he always spoke his opinon and didn't try to tailor his answer depending on which audience he was speaking to, like Clinton and those types like to do.

I was in a meeting the other day with the CEO of a major trucking company, one of the largest in the US, and two things he said caused me to admire him - 1) the biggest problem facing this country is the dumbing down of the American public, and 2) He would be perfectly happy if gasoline was $5.00 a gallon or more. Can you imagine that - the CEO of a trucking company actually wishing for higher gas prices? He's right of course, but the point is, how come there aren't any politicians out there saying that? Reason, because they are more interested in pandering to the average dumbell to get his vote, than to speak the thruth and risk alienating them. Someone like that I would vote for.

[Kodiak]

To those of you not voting: My most sincerest "Thank You".

I much prefer a President, even one I personally dislike, elected by caring and interested citizens.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Kodiak
To those of you not voting: My most sincerest "Thank You".

I much prefer a President, even one I personally dislike, elected by caring and interested citizens.

The Apathy Party could win every election for their candidate, if they could be bothered to have a candidate put on the ballot and then vote for him.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Kodiak
To those of you not voting: My most sincerest "Thank You".

I much prefer a President, even one I personally dislike, elected by caring and interested citizens.

Or naive ones. :rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Or naive ones. :rolleyes:

Care to elaborate, "Mr. Imtakingmyballandgoinghome"?

[darling]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
There are no qualified candidates for my local races either. :(
So make sure there is next time. Run.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by darling
So make sure there is next time. Run.


Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
"I haven't found a candidate yet who would make a good president."


I assumed that included his mirror...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
To those of you not voting: My most sincerest "Thank You".

I much prefer a President, even one I personally dislike, elected by caring and interested citizens.

And what is a caring and interested citizen supposed to do when he is not given the choice of any candidate that he feels is even remotely suitable for the job?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by shanek
And what is a caring and interested citizen supposed to do when he is not given the choice of any candidate that he feels is even remotely suitable for the job?

Pick the one that's the least remote. And if you think they're equal, pick the least remote VP on the chance the prez will kick the bucket. And if you think both pairs are exactly equally bad, then pick the pair with the most health problems and hope they both die and force another election.

Of course, a "caring citizen" probably isn't supposed to rejoice in anticipating the deaths of the country's leaders....well, perhaps a mild glee is permissable, given the sort of person who runs for office these days.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
And what is a caring and interested citizen supposed to do when he is not given the choice of any candidate that he feels is even remotely suitable for the job?

A caring and interested citizen would:

1. Find someone they did consider suitable and convince them to run, volunteer to aid their campaign, and help garner support from others for their candidate.

2. Run themselves.

3. Vote for most qualified candidate among those running.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
A caring and interested citizen would:

1. Find someone they did consider suitable and convince them to run, volunteer to aid their campaign, and help garner support from others for their candidate.

2. Run themselves.

3. Vote for most qualified candidate among those running.

1 & 2 sound good to me...except that every time I try it, I'm told I'm wasting my vote.

By the way, what is this caring person supposed to do when, whenever they attempt 1 & 2, they are faced with oppressive ballot access laws and tyrannical anti-free speech laws in the guise of "campaign finance reform"?