Why you should vote

I'm amazed at the idea that since you don't like either candidate you just shouldn't vote. I’m making this thread because of the astounding number of ATS members that are tired of voting for someone just because he’s better than the other guy. I agree, but when has inaction ever gotten anyone anything? Nothing gets better by itself... well except maybe alcohol and cheese.

Is the system in place as it is today flawed? Yes I can agree with that. But doing nothing will only allow those in power to stay as just that, the ones in power. If you don't like the system, or think it's flawed, work to change it. How many of us actually vote for our sheriff? Do you only vote in the presidential elections? I’m not saying everyone should start campaigning, but if you’re not happy with something, how does doing nothing help?

Let me tell you about Kitty Genovese. Kitty was a young woman in 1964 returning home one evening from her job as a bar manager in NY who was attacked and stabbed. The details are a little in question, but the initial reported scenario is this. She screamed for help with multiple neighbors hearing her, none of whom did anything to help her. Her attacker drove off and she stumbled to her apartment building, calling for help. About 10 minutes later her attacker returned, this time wearing a hat to try and hide his face, stabbed her several more times and raped her as she was dying.

Why is that relevant to the topic? In action, not doing something because you think someone else will do it, or it’s not your problem, or you can’t fix it…ect all the excuses in the world on why you just shouldn’t bother will help no one, and may end up hurting someone. The exact details of her murder, and lack of response is in question, but how many of us have seen youtube videos where there is someone getting beat up on a bus, and all other passengers just sit there and watch? How about doing something?

If you think the system is flawed, and you are not happy with it, the worst thing you can do is to not vote.

What I have gathered from the I am not voting crowd is they are not in love with the candidates because we all know this about a relationships. (Sarcasm) They can’t tell the difference between the two which is a failure on their part or just plain laziness. They do not understand the election process and its purpose so they refuse to participate. Some are just plain apathetic. Yes I said apathetic not pathetic as one person failed to comprehend in another thread. Some actually think that by doing nothing they are doing something and that logic is confounding which goes back to them not understanding the system.

I actually had one person say if the majority of people do not vote they think no one should be elected. So I will add idiocy to the list.

I am sure someone can add a few more. This could be a fun thread.


BTW S&F but you know the I am not voting crowd outnumbers the voting crowd on here so it will be interesting to see how many people S&F you compared to the thread that’s anti voting. Just imagine if the people sitting out the election voted they outnumber either party. However that logic escapes them.

Honestly though I do not get very upset at people that do not vote because look at the reasons I have gathered from people that don’t and ask yourself do you actually want these people deciding the nation’s future. Seriously if they do not even understand the system just what kind of decisions can you expect from them.

I am voting.

NOT FOR OBAMA..

but maybe Romney .. maybe Johnson..

I can't vote cause i'm Canadian but i think Obama will win, and i hope he does.

reply to post by CalebRight14


electionboycott2012.org...

If my credit card is stolen, all I have to do is report it and the card will be canceled immediately and I’ll only be responsible for a small amount, perhaps fifty dollars, of the debts incurred by the thief. But how would you feel if you phoned to report a stolen credit card and were told, “We’re sorry. The law says that we cannot cancel your credit card for four years from the time you report it, and during those four years, you will be fully and personally responsible for all debts incurred by the thief.” Do you think anyone would accept a credit card under those terms? Of course not.

But those are the contractual conditions the Constitution sets out between us and our elected federal officials. If they incur debts without consulting us and against our will, we cannot remove them from office to stop them from incurring further debts, and we, and our children and grandchildren, are responsible for any further debts they incur during their remaining time in office. We can ask Congress to impeach them, because the Constitution gave Congress the sole power to remove, through the impeachment process, federal officials, but while they have removed a few district judges, they have never in the history of the United States, removed a sitting President, Vice-President, or Member of Congress from office by impeachment.

Our other alternative is to wait until their terms of office, the only time that they can incur debts for which we are responsible and the only time that they are needed to represent us, are up, and then attempt to elect different representatives whom we also will not be able to hold accountable. While they are in office, they have power over us, but we have no power over them.

"We can beg, demand, have temper tantrums, and hold our breaths until we’re blue in the face, but we cannot exercise power over them because we have no power over them–the Constitution didn’t give us any."

You LIKE this system? Enough to vote for it?

reply to post by frazzle


That’s a pretty weak argument Frazzle. Electing officials is nothing like having a credit card, but since you went there. Basically what you're saying is all credit cards suck, so I'm not going to apply for one. I'm going to have one weither I apply for one or not, but I don't like any of them so I'll just take whichever one the bank forces me to use and have no say in it at all. I might get stuck with a 26% interest rate, but I don't care because I don't like 22% either. Awesome logic there.

95+ percent of politicians will lie cheat and steal to keep their voter base happy, and do whatever they want or whatever they think will get them reelected once in office. You should know that by now. Does that suck? Yes, but you don’t get more honest people elected by saying they are all crooks so I’m not voting for any of them. You do it by starting at low levels of office, and electing people that have similar values as you do, and working up and it may take several steps of getting slightly better candadites before you have one you will mostly agree with. You’re not going to be able to start at the president and work down. It has taken a long time for the system to get this bad, and it will take a long time to fix it. It can be done, but it will not get done if people just do nothing.

Originally posted by CalebRight14
reply to post by frazzle

 

That’s a pretty weak argument Frazzle. Electing officials is nothing like having a credit card.

95+ percent of politicians will lie cheat and steal to keep their voter base happy, and do whatever they want or whatever they think will get them reelected once in office. You should know that by now. Does that suck? Yes, but you don’t get more honest people elected by saying they are all crooks so I’m not voting for any of them. You do it by starting at low levels of office, and electing people that have similar values as you do, and working up and it may take several steps of getting slightly better candadites before you have one you will mostly agree with. You’re not going to be able to start at the president and work down. It has taken a long time for the system to get this bad, and it will take a long time to fix it. It can be done, but it will not get done if people just do nothing.

How happy is anyone's "base" these days? Well, I suppose if you count Goldman Sachs et al you could say some of them are pretty happy.

The system was "fixed" way back in the beginning to ensure that the top one percent would always be in charge and if you haven't noticed it yet, they still are. You have no idea what any given candidate's true values are, local or national. Ever.

Here is the problem with voting currently: the majority of the states employe winner-take-all in deciding who gets their electoral votes. So say you live in a state that is historically Democrat but you vote Republican? Your vote will count only in the sense that its tallied for the purpose of saying how many votes your candidate "lost" by but every single electoral vote for your state goes to the Democrat candidate even if it was nearly a dead split between the two. Does that sound fair to you, because it sure doesn't to me. This idea of purely red or blue states only further reinforces the stranglehold on the minds of the voting public.

I will agree that working at the local level is far more likely to generate results, however at the federal level it is all but pointless. As long as lobbyists exist the average person in America will stand absolutely zero chance of effecting any change at the federal level because they will never be able to rival the financial influence of big business, so ultimately until all forms of lobbying are outlawed there will be no overall change in the direction of the federal government that benefits the people, only that which will benefit those who line the pockets of senators and representatives.

You know,
If people can't figure out why they should vote.
Maybe they shouldn't be voting.

Originally posted by frazzle
[How happy is anyone's "base" these days? Well, I suppose if you count Goldman Sachs et al you could say some of them are pretty happy.

The system was "fixed" way back in the beginning to ensure that the top one percent would always be in charge and if you haven't noticed it yet, they still are. You have no idea what any given candidate's true values are, local or national. Ever.

That's how Marco Rubio and Allen West are Congressmen now? They were born into the 1%?

en.wikipedia.org...

Rubio was elected at the age of 28 to the Florida House of Representatives, representing Miami in Florida's 111th House District. He defeated Democrat Anastasia M. Garcia 72%-28%, or 64 votes, in a January 2000 special election.[22][23][24] In November 2000, he won re-election unopposed.[25] In 2002, he won re-election to a second full term unopposed.[26] In 2004, he won re-election to a third full term with 66% of the vote.[27] In 2006, he won re-election to a fourth full term unopposed.[28]

Did you catch that? He won his first election by 64 votes. Yes voting matters.

Allen West taught History in High School and coached track and field after he retired from the Military. Does that sound like the 1% to you?

Voting matters.

reply to post by CalebRight14

He defeated Democrat Anastasia M. Garcia 72%-28%, or 64 votes

Did you do the math on that?

Did you do the math on this?

www.opensecrets.org...

Or this?

nymag.com...

Yesterday, the Federal Election Commission announced it was fining Rubio $8,000 over more than $200,000 in improper contributions to his 2010 campaign. While only about one percent of his impressive total haul, Rubio's campaign accepted excessive contributions from over 100 individuals, two corporate contributions (which are illegal), and also some $26,000 for his primary election after the primary had taken place.

Rubio's also in some trouble over the CardGate scandal, in which top Florida Republican officials (including Rubio) used party credit cards for personal expenses.

Mom and apple pie.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by CalebRight14

 

He defeated Democrat Anastasia M. Garcia 72%-28%, or 64 votes

Did you do the math on that?

Did you do the math on this?

www.opensecrets.org...

Or this?

nymag.com...


Mom and apple pie.

No I haven't, and wiki may be wrong, but my overall point was that voting matters. What does His campaign contributions have to do with it? I don't know why you think that proves anything. He is now at the top level, would you expect him not to be getting donations? How much money you think he spent to get elected in 2000? I bet it wasn't 26 million.

Edit: Found it, 21,500 spent on his first election.
www.followthemoney.org...

There are times when things can't be " Fixed ". Humpty Dumpty comes to mind.
I firmly believe this is the case with our current situation. About 85% of Americans disagree with
our involvement in the war. Yet, although I can not prove this, I would suggest most will continue to vote for the individuals they voted for in the previous election. I would also suggest that although you feel frazzle presents a weak argument his actual words ring true.
"We can beg, demand, have temper tantrums, and hold our breaths until we’re blue in the face, but we cannot exercise power over them because we have no power over them–the Constitution didn’t give us any."
Being from N.Y. I'm familiar with Genovese. An extreme example, that even the most jaded New Yorker found unacceptable. Equally as weak if not more so then frazzles link to electionboycott2012.org. although the actual site presents some interesting arguments for not voting.
Personally, I am really torn on whether or not to participate in yet another round of voting for the lesser of two evils.For individuals who think our Constitution is the foundation of a free society Ron Paul was the only candidate worthy of consideration. The Forth Estate felt otherwise. The MSM plays a huge part in who or who will not be heard. Ron Paul said many go to Washington well intended but are eventually corrupted by the system. This implies the " System " is a monster which is beyond the bounds of the elected. Because I do actually understand how the process works, if I do vote , it will not be for either of the two pre-screened talking heads but for locale issues that will have an immediate effect on my life.
On youtube there is an excellent speech by Pres. Kennedy. He talks about the powers BEHIND the power ( not elected officials ). If you have the time, give it a listen. Then come back and tell me how my vote counts. Okay ?

One or the other is ridiculous.

I suppose if handed a bowl of dog # and a bowl of horse # you shouldnt just let yourself starve.

So get up from the table and go find something better than #.

The only reason anyone feels like they have to settle for a lesser evil is because we've let this mob-rule farce run our lives for so long. This isnt liberty. This isnt even close.

Originally posted by CalebRight14

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by CalebRight14

 

He defeated Democrat Anastasia M. Garcia 72%-28%, or 64 votes

Did you do the math on that?

Did you do the math on this?

www.opensecrets.org...

Or this?

nymag.com...


Mom and apple pie.

No I haven't, and wiki may be wrong, but my overall point was that voting matters. What does His campaign contributions have to do with it? I don't know why you think that proves anything. He is now at the top level, would you expect him not to be getting donations? How much money you think he spent to get elected in 2000? I bet it wasn't 26 million.

Edit: Found it, 21,500 spent on his first election.
www.followthemoney.org...

edit on 31-10-2012 by CalebRight14 because: (no reason given)

You didn't do the math and now you say wiki may be wrong even though you used it as a source to back up your opinion. Rubio ran unopposed multiple times and still raked in the campaign dough. Why do you suppose that is?

It isn't even that he received campaign donations or how much of it he spent, rather its WHO those donations were from. Money talks and voters are bamboozled.

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by CalebRight14

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by CalebRight14

 

He defeated Democrat Anastasia M. Garcia 72%-28%, or 64 votes

Did you do the math on that?

Did you do the math on this?

www.opensecrets.org...

Or this?

nymag.com...


Mom and apple pie.

No I haven't, and wiki may be wrong, but my overall point was that voting matters. What does His campaign contributions have to do with it? I don't know why you think that proves anything. He is now at the top level, would you expect him not to be getting donations? How much money you think he spent to get elected in 2000? I bet it wasn't 26 million.

Edit: Found it, 21,500 spent on his first election.
www.followthemoney.org...

edit on 31-10-2012 by CalebRight14 because: (no reason given)

You didn't do the math and now you say wiki may be wrong even though you used it as a source to back up your opinion. Rubio ran unopposed multiple times and still raked in the campaign dough. Why do you suppose that is?

It isn't even that he received campaign donations or how much of it he spent, rather its WHO those donations were from. Money talks and voters are bamboozled.

You didn't know wiki is wrong sometimes? Glad I could enlighten you. Plenty of people use Wiki as a source, I simply do not believe everything I read. I sourced it because it highlighted my point, which you either are willfully missing, or it is a good thing for the rest of us you're not voting. Even if the number is not 64, he got into politics with very few comparative votes as to what it takes to win a senate seat.
My point has always been, if you're not happy with the system, work to change it, by doing nothing you're hurting yourself because you still have to follow the laws of the land...Or don't.

I'm not advocating Rubio, I don't follow him and I don't know what he may or may not have done. I used him as an example of someone coming from not the 1%, and now in that group, which you said is impossible because the system was made by the rich to keep the rich in power.

Don't expect me to believe you would not take money from an organization that has policies that you disagree with. I don't know if Rubio is a fan of all his contributors or not, and frankly I don't really care.
He would continue to receive donations so he'd have more money to spend when he challenged for a higher office, or was challenged himself. That's what some of us would call planning for the future. Was he being bought? Maybe I don't know, but just because he was receiving money doesn't in and of itself mean anything.

I'm a Brit, so no real interest in the outcome of your election, but we have a saying 'if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got' !
Just say, for arguments sake, that nobody showed up to vote.? What does your constitution dictate would happen in this situation ?
Personally, I can't bring myself to vote for any politician who is guaranteed by nature and systemic corruption to lie to me, and further perpetuate the chronic problems we see every day on Planet Earth.
To vote for more of the same would be some kind of endorsement, and a blank cheque to make things even worse.
Just my opinion, you understand ?
Sort out the worlds banks, the real power base pulling the strings of every government, and we just might have a chance of a happy, peaceful, and thriving world population.

Originally posted by dazbog
There are times when things can't be " Fixed ". Humpty Dumpty comes to mind.

I firmly believe this is the case with our current situation. About 85% of Americans disagree with
our involvement in the war. Yet, although I can not prove this, I would suggest most will continue to vote for the individuals they voted for in the previous election.

I agree, part of the intent behind this thread actually.

Originally posted by dazbog
I would also suggest that although you feel frazzle presents a weak argument his actual words ring true.
"We can beg, demand, have temper tantrums, and hold our breaths until we’re blue in the face, but we cannot exercise power over them because we have no power over them–the Constitution didn’t give us any."

Then wouldn't a better plan be to vote people in that want term limits and will actually impeach someone who has violated the law? In what world does doing nothing get results? That’s worse than doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Originally posted by dazbog
Being from N.Y. I'm familiar with Genovese. An extreme example, that even the most jaded New Yorker found unacceptable. Equally as weak if not more so then frazzles link to electionboycott2012.org. although the actual site presents some interesting arguments for not voting.

So you're familiar with it and still say it's weak? A perfect example of the kind of person that would just watch because, hey, it's not me.

Originally posted by dazbog
Personally, I am really torn on whether or not to participate in yet another round of voting for the lesser of two evils.For individuals who think our Constitution is the foundation of a free society Ron Paul was the only candidate worthy of consideration. The Forth Estate felt otherwise. The MSM plays a huge part in who or who will not be heard. Ron Paul said many go to Washington well intended but are eventually corrupted by the system. This implies the " System " is a monster which is beyond the bounds of the elected. Because I do actually understand how the process works, if I do vote , it will not be for either of the two pre-screened talking heads but for locale issues that will have an immediate effect on my life.

If you don't think Ron Paul's actions, even if not elected haven't made an impact, I don't know where you have been. As I said it has taken a long time for the system to get this bad, it won't get back on track overnight.

Originally posted by dazbog
On youtube there is an excellent speech by Pres. Kennedy. He talks about the powers BEHIND the power ( not elected officials ). If you have the time, give it a listen. Then come back and tell me how my vote counts. Okay ?

I don't think I want you to vote, so why would I try and convince you?

reply to post by CalebRight14

You didn't know wiki is wrong sometimes? Glad I could enlighten you. Plenty of people use Wiki as a source, I simply do not believe everything I read. I sourced it because it highlighted my point, which you either are willfully missing, or it is a good thing for the rest of us you're not voting. Even if the number is not 64, he got into politics with very few comparative votes as to what it takes to win a senate seat.
My point has always been, if you're not happy with the system, work to change it, by doing nothing you're hurting yourself because you still have to follow the laws of the land...Or don't.

LOL, I'm not the one who used wiki as a source. But you're 100% right about me not voting for anyone who will further abuse you. Who am I to tell someone else its okay with me if they abuse your rights with color of law LAWS they write and pass?

I'm not advocating Rubio, I don't follow him and I don't know what he may or may not have done. I used him as an example of someone coming from not the 1%, and now in that group, which you said is impossible because the system was made by the rich to keep the rich in power.

I'm also not the one who used Rubio as an example for anything, although we're told that nobody in Fl cares if he was fined for election fraud. So what they say, he's still their man.

Hint: the people in real power aren't the pretty faces they wave at us from our TV screens, even though those pretty faces are generally well taken care of by their corporate sponsors in the 1%. For favors, of course, favors that benefit their sponsors, not you. I don't hate you that much.

reply to post by dazbog

On youtube there is an excellent speech by Pres. Kennedy. He talks about the powers BEHIND the power ( not elected officials ). If you have the time, give it a listen. Then come back and tell me how my vote counts. Okay ?

In 2000 the election in Florida was decided by 563 votes which gave the election to Bush. Does that give you an idea of how your vote counts?