You don't vote, you can't complain.

[Gold Jinjo]

I'm sitting in a cafeteria at my university, and there were these older gentlemen at the table next to me. I heard one of them say "You don't vote, you can't b*tch. You don't vote, you can't b*tch."

And I disagree with that wholeheartedly.


Isn't the point of the democratic process all about choice? Isn't that the point of democracy? Freedom of the vote? Surely the freedom of not voting is also part of the democratic process?

Take the 2004 US Presidential election. You have a choice between George Bush and John Kerry. You don't like either candidates. Like South Park alluded to, the choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

You don't agree with them on anything. So why, in your right mind, would you vote for either of them? Is voting for the lesser of two evils right? I don't believe it is. So your other option is to just not vote at all.

But does that suddenly strip you of your first amendment rights? If I didn't like either Bush or Kerry, and I chose not to give either of those guys my sacred vote, I'm just supposed to shut up? It was the fact that I cared in the first place that led me to the choice of not voting for these idiots. Why vote an idiot into office?


Saying that if someone doesn't vote, they can't complain is probably the dumbest thing you can say.

[Articerile]

Well, if you complain that McCain is winning, and then don't vote for Obama, it kind of is right to say that.
If you hate it so much DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

However if you CAN'T, not don't, you can *****.

[Gold Jinjo]

Originally Posted by Articerile

Well, if you complain that McCain is winning, and then don't vote for Obama, it kind of is right to say that.
If you hate it so much DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

True, if people can't get off their ass and change things, then they probably should STFU.

But I'm talking more about people who disagree with both sides (or all sides) and choose not to vote. Apparently the "STFU" thing still applies, according to some people. That's what I disagree with.

[Articerile]

Then they should vote None Of The Above and try and get an alternative leader.

[firealpha]

You really should vote for the lesser of two evils in that case.

[Articerile]

Over there they have the None Of The Above option.
Which, if enough people pick it, means that nobody gets the job and then something or other happens.

[wkw427]

If you don't vote, you don't participate inthe government and can't complain about it.

It is like saying that the grilled cheese sandwitch that somebody gave to you for free, right out of the blue is disgusting. You didn't tell them how to make it and didn't ask for it, so if you didn't want ot throw it out

[hatrickpatrick]

This is why I think the political system in America is so bizarre - you only have two major parties to choose from, so inevitably you're going to be voting for the lesser of two evils.
In Ireland we have at least 4 or 5 parties. Two very big ones and two fairly big ones, then a whole load of smaller ones. There's bound to be a party for everyone in that mix.

Why doesn't someone in the US form a third party and attempt to end the long standing dominance of the Democrats and the Republicans of the US political system?

[White]

Originally Posted by hatrickpatrick

This is why I think the political system in America is so bizarre

Wait till you see Venezuela's political system. You dont get to choose ANYTHING.

[banjo nerd]

People who don't vote don't have a say in the argument. Vote, if you want to change your country.

They can complain, but they shouldn't debate anything.


Hatrick, there are about 12 political parties to vote for in the USA (excluding the independent candidates).

Here in Canada, though, we have 18 >.>

[Oz the Gay and Powerful]

Originally Posted by banjo nerd

They can complain, but they shouldn't debate anything.

What.

Not even I have some witty politically satirical comeback for that.

Just... what?

Anyway, that's how I feel about the internet. Everyone complains about everything ever in all of existence, especially video games but they never dig themselves out of their computer chairs to try and change anything. Especially video games.

[banjo nerd]

Well I admit, what I meant to say I didn't put it correctly. In fact, I put it very unclear. I'm not to sure how to put it.

Hmm, I guess I could say it like this, "Complain about gas prices, but don't debate with voters and/or bicker at the Government."

[Gold Jinjo]

My issue is that there seems to be a universal idea that voting HAS to be done, making voting neither a right or a privilege.

I mentioned South Park. They basically implied that voting between Bush and Kerry was voting between a douche and a turd. In an interview, they said "Watch that episode, you'll know who we voted for." --they didn't vote.


South Park is one of the biggest and one of the best shows around today that criticizes the world, politics, celebrities, and everything else under the sun. So if the creators of that show didn't vote for Bush or Kerry, didn't participate in the 2004 election... does that negate any opinions or complaints their show brings up, politically?



Don't get me wrong, I think voting is extremely important. I wish I had American citizenship just so I could give Obama my vote. On the other hand, here in Canada, I pay no attention to government or politics, I have no clue what's going on... therefore I feel no need to vote simply on the basis that I cannot, in good conscience, cast a vote without being comfortably informed.

And then there are regular voters who aren't informed, and still vote with no clue. Do they have the right to complain then? They voted, so they must. Even if they're uninformed.



Can anyone see my problem with this?


I'm not trying to give or take away rights to voters or non-voters. I'm just saying the whole argument is too generalizing and wrong.

[Gage]

Gold Jinjo, I agree with you completely.

Recently, former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, in accordnance with his recent counter-convention Rally for the Republic (in protest of the GOP's Convention), suggested to the more than 1.3 million people who voted for him in the Republican primaries to vote for neither Barack Obama nor John McCain. Now, in retrospect, it probably seems like he's saying "don't vote," when in reality, that is actually the complete opposite of what he is saying, he endorsed ALL third party candidates; Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, and Ralph Nader running as an independent. All of whom agreed on four major political topics that led to the endorsements: an end to foreign interventionism, everyone's right to personal privacy, no further increases in the national debt, and a thorough investigation, evaluation, and audit of the Federal Reserve; all of which, a majority of Americans agree with, but Obama and McCain BOTH believe that none of the above issues that I just listed are at all important.

So what I am trying to say here is, we are the majority. Only about 16% of the people who vote for the winning Democratic or Republican candidate actually vote for that candidate because they wanted them to personally win (not a lesser of two evils vote) and agree with them on the issues. So if we add up the over 60% - 70% of people who either vote for a lesser of two evils candidate, or don't vote, and have all of those people actually vote FOR a candidate, then I believe that we would have a much better country than the one we have today.

(Sorry if that seemed a little jumbled , a little tired right now. Check out this recent interview for a better understanding of what I'm trying to say here.)

[Oz the Gay and Powerful]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avmm8...eature=related

It had to be done...