Go vote! No legal thing is worse than a citizen in a democratic nation that is allowed to vote but choose to not do so. Every vote matters, the ancesters you are so proud of died and fought to give the generations of today the option to choose whom to lead them. Every nonvoter is a blow against democracy in itself and are leading to the weakening of your own freedom. Every vote matters, if you feel that there is no party/voice/candidate that you want to support vote for the least ill or even vote blank if you have to. But you have the oppurtinity to vote, no the *obligation* to vote. If you do not you are not worthy of the privilige of living in a nation that gives its citizens that option.
Generally this goes for any nation with an election but as it is one in the states today/tomorrow and they are known for a low turnout I thought I would stress it.

And if you're in Nevada, vote to legalize marijuana. :p

And vote against all bond measures just on principle.

<Nudges BTA>

Ain't he a funny guy :D ?

So Joacquin, look up Erskine Bowles and Elizabeth Dole for NC and tell me who I should vote for. :p

Absolutely vote, and vote against any bond measure or other initiative designed to raise taxes or fund someone's pet project. We elect the members of the legislature for a reason -- to decide, with the executive branch of the government, how to spend our money. If they try to palm it off on the voters, what are they doing with their time in office?

Personally, this all goes back to the public flogging thread, but I'll leave it alone. Congressmen have enough to worry about without having to deal with cuts and bruising.

And yeah. I vote. More often than not, it is quite literally the lesser of the evils, but I use my #2 pencil.

Out of curiousity, how many people use the "scantrons" to vote with?

I've been using them ever since I started voting in my state.

You're in Florida, too, right ejsmith? Alachua county has used scantron sheets for a while. Tomorrow's ballot is 4 pages! This one's gonna take a while

I don't care who you guys vote for, but PLEASE don't vote for anyone jerk who wants to take our 2nd amendment rights away!!!! Look what happened on the Simpsons when Lisa got everyone to get rid of thier guns! :rolling:

Wise words from Kitrax...

I haven't missed a vote since I became eligible. It's probably the most important thing a citizen can do in a democracy, and it shames me that the best the US can muster in an election year is a 49-50% voter turnout! Oh well, you get out what you put in!

Never forget that one vote can make a difference - especially if you can encourage several people that think that way to make it to the ballot box.

Let me get up on my soapbox: Don't vote blindly! I've never voted a straight ticket in my life! Think about what's important to you, then find out what is important to the candidates...Then make your choice!

And most importantly: Turn off the news!!! Don't let talking heads with their own agendas pick the candidates for you! Nothing is worse than a bunch of lemmings jumping off a cliff just because someone says jump!

Thus endeth the rant...

They have lemmings on television now??1??!?!?

P.S. Erskine is teh sux.

[ November 05, 2002, 15:29: Message edited by: Shralp ]

No...One shouldn't act like lemmings!!! Well, maybe they are on tv.

My chad is hanging, my chad is hanging!!!!! The horror! ;) :lol: :grin: :spin: :roll:

Those that don't vote are either apathetic or uninformed. Do you really want those people voting? I sure don't, though I'm not sure how much better the average voter is! :)

You said it, BTA! Most people who *do* vote seem to automatically go for the same party each election, like they're rooting for a sports team, without putting any research or thought into why one platform is better than another. The democratic process is better off without *more* apathetic voters.

I disagree...If you're casting a ballot, you cannot be apathetic. You're involved in the political process! But I do agree that voters shoudl try to be as informed as possible before they close the curtain.

I am voting for the Very Silly Party! :grin:

If I lived in the US, I would vote for the Estrogen Monkey party, with its benevolent leader C'Jakob.

Oh, and I'd have to grow up by a coupla years, but that's not important.

Just remember...dead people CANNOT vote. That's CANNOT, ok? :D

The dead are allowed to vote, but only here in Illinois. With a very close governor's race this year, the dead are expected to vote in record numbers.

Ahh, for the glory days of machine politics ... :D

Sprite and BTA you are threading dangerous grounds, elitism has no place in a democracy. No matter how stupid and ignorant voters are they should be encouraged to vote. Believe me when I say I have seen my fair share of idiotic reasons to pick what to vote for but that is a part of the system. Even apathetic voters are better than fanatics and extremists and believe me, they vote. Not encouraging the ignorant and stupid to vote, even if they vote for someone that has a nice coat or pretty smile is dangerous as it may open up for extremist powers whose followers vote every single one of them.

Big B, I would never presume to tell you who to vote for or even give you my opinion, it is your choice and no ones elses. For good or for bad.

I was joking to a degree, I will make up my own mind.

But I do agree with Shralp about Erskine is the "sux", not that Dole is the "roxor" but she is better for us North Carolians IMHO.

I disagree that apathetic or uninformed voters should be encouraged to vote. They are worse than extremists and fanatics because they have no reasoning behind what they choose.

Apathetic and/or uninformed citizens should be encouraged to become involved and knowlegeable about the issues/people in the government. That way they will want to vote and can make intelligent decisions based on facts and not nonsense.

Excuse me, but they are not worse than me!

Because of ignorant war wanting extremists, Bush won before...lol :p :toofar: :grin:

Push the apathetics!
Or should I say: Bush the apathetics!!!

Hehe. How could anyone be worse than Extremist? I stand corrected ;)

[ November 05, 2002, 21:02: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

I totaly agree with Joq, voting is very imortant, but you got a problem it seems.
I know that you got more then two partys, but it seems that they don't have the mony to finance a election tour, therefor they wont be known...
This is said, and its also said that the companies and banks got so much power in politics...The world aint democratic, more plutocratic...

Ok, I don't agree with you blackthorn, though I understand thy plationistic wievs, why shouldnt the most fittest rule?

Well, do humanity a favor and vote for the socialist party! (And if the CIA comes after you, fight them!) :)

Actually, I'll agree with joacqin here. The first time I voted, I was 18 and clueless. Not so anymore. And, in discussing voting in general with friends and coworkers, the majority admitted that they never really paid attention to politics until after the first time they voted, no matter what age they were.
So, from an informal kinda sorta not really but seems like a survey point of view, voting in and of itself cured the voter's apathy. So yes, I will still ancourage people to vote, even if they are apathetic. Personally, I don't think they'll stay that way.

Edited for spelling

[ November 06, 2002, 07:37: Message edited by: Stefanina ]

Wait, wait. You're telling me that the act of poking holes in a piece of paper cures apathy? What an amazing thing!

I would venture to say that the act of going through the ballot to see what the issues are, and realizing that you really do care one way or the other is what cured the apathy.

I have no objection to encouraging people to look at the ballot and vote what they believe, but to encourage someone who doesn't care and has no idea what they're voting for to just go ahead and randomly vote because it's the right thing to do, is preposterous IMO.

I don't vote. Why not? Because I don't have the time to follow all of the issues in all of the different elections and determine who would be best to lead us. And everyone knows that politicians change their stance on issues at the drop of a hat anyway "read my lips, no... new... taxes....".

I don't want to screw the system up by voting when I don't have a clear understanding on what all of the issues are, or how they affect me personally. If more people were like me and left the politics to those who knew what they were talking about, this country would be a better place.

Um...That's called Fascism or Totalitarianism. No thanks! I'd rather have uninformed voters casting ballots rather than a few people ruling who "know what's good for me"

Word up Sir Bel! I heard that the turnout was only around 30%...if that is true it is disatrous. What do you americans think is the reason for this apathy? I cant imagine that the people that dont vote agree with the people in power or else they would vote to make sure they stay there, or? Why didnt 70% of the eligible voters vote? I would also be happy if someone could confirm that number as I only heard it quickly in the news.

I would guess most people who don't vote either don't care, or don't believe their vote will count for much.

If you want someone other than a Republican or Democrat in a government position, you're pretty much wasting your time, and very often people don't like either major party candidate, so they don't vote.

I vote more for the issues and measures on the ballot than the people, but I am always defeated, I am always on the losing side.

For example, take the $13 billion bond issue for improving/building schools in California. California is already so far in debt that its credit rating is one of the worst in the nation. Just 5 years ago a bond measure for something like $6 billion for the same thing (in general) was approved. I couldn't believe this thing passed, but I should have guessed since I voted against it :)

[ November 07, 2002, 00:01: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

Well if 70% of the pop dont think their vote matters or they dont like the candidates there must be a golden oppurtunity for some new blood. In my eyes a low turnout is a serious threat to the democracy as it tends to solidify what is make it more difficult for change to happen. When the turnout here in Sweden dropped below 80% there were more or less panic in the media and among the politicans. Not that it helped much most nation are closing in on the US in turnout numbers and political apathy.

Living in Quebec, I find myself torn on this issue.

On the one hand, I don't want uninformed buffoons casting uneducated or random votes - I don't feel people should have a say in something they know nothing about. You bring your car to the garage because trying to fix it yourself would likely only make things worse.

On the other hand, I feel compelled to vote for one particular party, not so much because I embrace what they stand for but rather becase I know they are the only party that stands a chance of defeating the one party I really don't want in power.

Unlike the United States, we do not have a two-party system. While one would logically think this would give voters more choice, voting for any other than one of the two major parties is tantamount to throwing your vote away.

In theory, getting more people more informed about, and more actively involved in, the political process could help to reverse this trend. To have a multi-party system where you are free to cast a vote for the party of your choosing without the fear of throwing away your vote - with each party (or at least several parties) actually standing a chance - would be a blessing. Two problems arise here; first, how to remedy voter apathy (or should I say non-voter apathy?), and second, to get people to break old habits, to learn to vote for the issues they believe in, not simply voting for the same party they have always voted for in the past.

Of course, I have no solution to either of these problems. Forgive me if this makes little to no sense, my thoughts are a bit of a jumble on this...

[edited for spelling mistakes]

[ November 07, 2002, 02:15: Message edited by: JohnnyRTFM ]

I'm not sure where you heard the 30% numbers, but around here voter turnout was nearly 70%. We approached a record for non-presidential-year elections.

For those people who don't think thier vote counts, explain the closeness of the last presidential election.
If anyone is near, in, or heard about the govenor's race here in Alabama, it was a close race. In fact, both the Democratic and Republican candidate are claiming victory.
There is some controversy whether some votes count, etc.
The thing is, is your vote didn't count, this wouldn't happen.

That was kinda my point above. What if you wanted neither the Republican nor the Democrat? What if you wanted the Libertarian? Your vote would be pretty much throw-away.

Hee- several elections ago in Canada, the conservative candidate in my riding came to my door and when I told her I was voting Libertarian, she told me I was "throwing my vote away" on a party that didn't stand a chance. That was the election that resulted in the brain-dead conservative PM being turfed and the conservative party being de-registered because they didn't have enough votes! I didn't think my vote was wasted at all... :shake:

That's a funny definition of Fascism, above- here's a more usual contemporary one: "centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism." The original, but now obsolete, meaning was of a leadership created by demanding allegiance to a symbol or flag (such as the swastika) - note the etymology. You can imagine why that definition is out of vogue. Not a word in either case about people voluntarily choosing not to vote, in the interests of the greater good, in the elections they don't fully understand...

Shralp - National voter turnouts for this election were higher than the latest non-presidential year, but still very low:

W A S H I N G T O N, Nov. 6 — This year's midterm congressional election apparently attracted more voters than the last one, in 1998, according to a survey on voter turnout.

Curtis Gans, director of the independent Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, estimated Tuesday's turnout at 78.5 million, more than 39 percent of voting-age citizens.

Here's the rest of the article if you want to read it:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20021106_2542.html

My voting theory (and I am a voter, so I am allowed this theory) is that if you don't excercise your duty to vote, you have no right to gripe.

And yes, I did say "duty" to vote. Not a duty to the government, a duty to yourself: to attempt to give to yourself the best representation available (even if all of them are terrible, one of them is not as bad as the others). If you cannot do this duty, including keeping up with issues and showing up on the right day (and checking for hanging chads), than you deserve the political pain and anguish that the government may put you through. Just don't gripe to me about it if you didn't vote!