I know there isn't a reason to vote. If you vote, it provides 1 for every 0, which is always good. We want solid votes, not low numbers of nothing.
| |
Kaga-Kami wrote:
I know there isn't a reason to vote. If you vote, it provides 1 for every 0, which is always good. We want solid votes, not low numbers of nothing. Whaa? Are you saying there IS or ISN'T a reason to vote? lol | |
Xooxer wrote:
Casting your vote is like giving the guy your permission to do whatever he wants. And if he wants to kill a whole bunch of people because his oil interests would benefit, then you are partially to blame for those people's deaths. Please. I could just as easily argue that declining to vote is like giving everyone else permission to choose the winner on your behalf, and thereby giving the winner your permission to do whatever he/she wants. Both statements are equally ridiculous. And I don't think anyone should be held responsible for extreme actions in office that could not have been easily predicted based on the candidate's campaign or past history. Not voting frees you from that responsibility. Taking this attitude to its logical extreme, there's always an extremely small chance a parent could unknowingly feed their child contaminated food that could kill him/her. If that were to happen, by your logic, the parent is partially to blame. Thus, not feeding the child frees the parent of that responsibility. Of course the example is extreme, but it illustrates my point. Anyone is free to choose not to vote, but you have still made a choice which affects your fellow citizens. It's like that Rush song - If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. And that choice still carries with it some small level of responsibility. | |
Also, as for a parent feeding their child. What's worse:
Think about it. In the 2nd case, the parent is truly a horrible person, while in the first, it's a tragedy, but that parent is not to blame. | |
so when I tell someone to die I get a warning, but he doesnt?
| |
I have a new slogan: people who vote for Nader have no right to complain.
See, this is where civics classes get it wrong. The people who don't vote have more right to complain than anybody... they did not enter into an agreement to abide by the decision of the majority. When you vote, you're saying "This is what I think, but whatever the majority decides is good." You're giving your approval to the process and by extension the results. Non-voters have not given their approval, they have not agreed to abide by the majority decision. They therefore have the right to complain. People who do vote... and vote constructively... also have the right to complain because they tried. They participated and did something. People who vote for a third party candidate with no shot at winning, though, give up the right to complain because they participate but they do so in a way that they have no predictable effect on the end. They're saying "I agree with the process... but don't care who wins." The Green Party wants to do good? They need to build up their support outside the two party system and then put their candidates on the ballot. They complain about the system and how it holds down third parties... but election after election, they tie themselves up in it. They're not going to get anywhere that way. So what if neither candidate is that good? Choose the lesser of two evils. What's so wrong with that? Less evil is more good, isn't it? If someone gives you a choice of getting kicked in the shin, shot in the kneecap, or a "mystery box" with one fate or the other written inside it... you'd have no problem picking, would you? Nader voters are picking the box... and so they've got no right to complain when the nation gets shot in the kneecap. | |
You can keep trying to twist this around, but nobody warned you just for saying the word "die." Nobody thinks you threatened anybody and nobody thinks anybody will die because you told them to. You were warned because you were rude, you displayed a lack of civility. It's the same as saying "bite me" or "go [perform an anatomically improbable action upon] yourself." Nobody thinks you're really telling someone to do these things.
It's just another way of being rude, something we're trying to eliminate on the message boards. | |
I agree. There is no chance Nader will win, especially due to the media only covering Bush and Kerry practically, so voting another party is practically like not voting at all.
| |
Kunark wrote:
I agree. There is no chance Nader will win, especially due to the media only covering Bush and Kerry practically, so voting another party is practically like not voting at all. It's a vicious cycle. Because of no coverage, no one will vote for a third party. Since no one votes for third parties, they don't get enough of the votes for the media to cover them. They also haven't been able to get into a presidential debate for years. | |
Voting for Nader is not like picking in the mystery box. Voting for Nader is taking votes away from Kerry. Also, I would wrather get kicked in the shin then get shot in the kneecap. I think I speak for everyone when I say that.
| |
They also haven't been able to get into a presidential debate for years. Yeh. I think that is pretty lame. | |
It does not matter who is president. Once the president leaves office and the next election starts everyone (even people from the same party) hate the current president. They always talk about how much he stinks and did things wrong. Well, that just goes to show how not everyone is happy, and they never will be. Nobody will 100% like the president. Every president has screwed up. Every single one of them. They cannot be perfect. Sure, they are supposed to, but, they are like every other human. They are never perfect.
| |
It does not matter who is president. Once the president leaves office and the next election starts everyone (even people from the same party) hate the current president. They always talk about how much he stinks and did things wrong. Well, that just goes to show how not everyone is happy, and they never will be. Nobody will 100% like the president. Every president has screwed up. Every single one of them. They cannot be perfect. Sure, they are supposed to, but, they are like every other human. They are never perfect.
| |
Votes for Nader are not automatically away from Kerry. By and large they are... but it's an oversimplification to pretend that they all are. That's why I say it's picking the mystery box.
Also, I would wrather get kicked in the shin then get shot in the kneecap. I think I speak for everyone when I say that. No, really? ... Did you seriously not get that this is the whole point? | |
Person A votes for Bush, not knowing this, and Bush pushes his little red button, destroying the whole world.
Person A votes for Kerry and then Kerry wins, but A is unhappy with Kerry.
Obviously the example is kinda extreme, but the real question is, if Person A didn't vote, does he have a right to complain about either situation? He could have made a difference, but instead, he left the answer to fate.
Edit: Got rid of the Hitler example; Jotdaniel was right.