Failing to Vote

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 8 2006, 07:27 PM) [snapback]345945[/snapback]</div>

I'll second what you say!

By the way, did anyone see the piece they did on CBS News on election day? ( /brag mode on) They covered in a big way how Minnesota allways has the highest voter turnout in the nation ( /brag mode off)

 

You must be a product of the NCLBehind act.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 8 2006, 05:39 PM) [snapback]345950[/snapback]</div>

Or as I like to think of it - No Child Expected to Exceed Act.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Nov 8 2006, 09:45 PM) [snapback]345957[/snapback]</div>

My experience through my 9th graders is closer to 'No child ahead, ergo no child behind'

It is really pathetic. I'll mention two examples --
Both my kids took and excelled in a difficult English for gifted kids class in 8th grade. In 9th grade the gifted curriculum is gutted in the high school, and all kids *must* take '9th grade English' as part of the core curriculum, before any advanced placement (AP) classes are allowed. Their 'honors' English class is a mixture of advanced kids, and students who gained a C grade or better from the regular English 8th grade class. The kids say it is about 7th grade level from middle school on their prior track.

At orientation for the AP calculus course at the beginning of the year, the teachers were ecstatic to report that enrollment in the class had increased 70% in the past two years, and they were boldly projecting even higher rates. Their next slide showed the number of students who scored 3 or better on the AP exam, which showed a slight downward trend !

If you are wondering why my 9th grader is in calculus given my criticism, I'll quickly say it took parental overide of the math department head in middle school, use of the special education act, and willingness to drive him out of his school district to a maverick itinerant math teacher to allow him placement in courses suitable to his abilities.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 8 2006, 05:27 PM) [snapback]345945[/snapback]</div>

The fallacy of the above argument is that it makes the obviously-false assumption that a person who didn't vote cares who won. There is no mandate when 70% of the voters could not care less which crook is in office.

You proceed from the fallacious assertion that not voting for the loser is support for the winner, via faulty logic to the even more fallacious assertion that not voting is intentional support for whoever happened to win, to arrive at your preposterous conclusion that abstaining from voting (because both candidates are crooks) is a mandate for the crook who won.

In fact, when 50% of the electorate abstains (or even more so, 70% in your example) it is a clear mandate against the entire, corrupt, bought-and-sold electoral system.

I do vote, by the way. I have voted in every election since I came of voting age. I vote for people of character, who for that reason almost always lose. But I'd rather vote for an honest person and see her lose than vote for a crook and see him win; and when both major-party candidates are crooks, I don't care which of the two wins.

If the winner claims a mandate because I didn't vote for his equally-crooked opponent, then he is a liar. But of course they are both liars anyway.

 

"I do vote, by the way. I have voted in every election since I came of voting age"

Why?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 9 2006, 08:27 AM) [snapback]346275[/snapback]</div>

I agree with your assessment of his flawed logic, Daniel, but I don't agree with the above. While I agree with you that there is ample reason for people to not want to vote for either major party and therefore make a statement, I think the biggest reason for low turnout is that Americans are fat, apathetic, and uneducated. They're too comfortable with their lifestyle, which takes away that hunger for effecting a change; They feel too disconnected from the process and the people/issues they're supposed to be voting for, so they don't really care one way or another; and they aren't taught about civic responsibility at an early age, nor having the lesson repeatedly reinforced while growing up, which results in them not really knowing they have a serious reason for getting out from in front of their TV and making some positive change.

Vince

 

If you don't vote, stay home on Election Day. Now is no time to change your habits. The lines are long enough as it is without having non-voters clogging up the works!

Just remember the Constitutional crisis we had with Bush's first election. The democrats really turned out the voters and what did we get? A bunch of people who didn't know how to vote, grinding to a halt the wheels of Democracy all because they couldn't punch their chads right. Do you really want to bring this country to its knees again? Of course not. So stay home.

 

The basic logic fallacy of the OP are simpler than Daniel's critique.

"you" is not one deciding vote, it is hundreds of millions of votes that do NOT vote all in one direction.

Consider, that if the logic was sound, the opposite conclusion would be true also. As in

Faith may allow contradictory conclusions to co-exist in the minds of the deluded, but logic does not.

 

Here Schmika, this should make you feel better :

 

So your saying if I don't vote, I'll always be on the winning team?

 

This has been suggested before (and struck down by the Republacrat party for obvious reasons) that there be a "none of the above" line in ballots. I still think that's a great idea.

People who don't vote could be registering disgust with the system (the lesser of two evils is still evil), or it could be laziness. Using Occam's razor, I'd be willing to bet in 99% of the cases it's the latter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Nov 9 2006, 10:02 AM) [snapback]346299[/snapback]</div>

Here in Arizona some ding dong got an initiative on the ballot for a lottery to give $1 million to some lucky voter at each election. It was defeated thank heaven. What we really need is a voter whose main motivation is that he might get lucky. Although voting on the wrong side of almost everything, I guess "voter who's hoping he might get lucky"" could descrbe me

WRT your analysis of the 2000 presidential election -- way to oversimplify. BTW I didn't see any constitutional crisis. Things seem to have been resolved in accordance with the constitution and applicable laws. Since there's actually no constitutional provision for election of the president by popular vote, that might not be the best example anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pogo @ Nov 9 2006, 04:23 PM) [snapback]346517[/snapback]</div>

I feel people should be compensated for voting. It would also be an incentive. Say $100.00. To come from a windfall tax on oil companies.

 

I like the idea of having to pass a test before gaining the privilege to vote. E.g., is it possible for an innocent to be interrogated to death under the torture bill ? 2) Could the killer be absolved of culpability 3) Could the incident be suppressed under guise of 'national security' ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Nov 9 2006, 04:40 PM) [snapback]346530[/snapback]</div>

Could Doberman be an "enemy combatant" (or even squid!)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 9 2006, 04:29 PM) [snapback]346522[/snapback]</div>

*I* think there should be a line-item tax. For example, "Are you in favor of federally funded abortion?" If so, it adds a dollar to your tax. If not, it adds $100 to your tax for welfare of unwanted children.

"Are you in favor of the war in Iraq?" If no, it adds nothing. If yes, it adds $1000 to your tax bill.

"Which would you choose? You MUST choose one:" Public Education: $20.00; unemployment benefits for untrained citizens: $100.00.

"Do you support federal funding of the arts?" If yes, it adds, oh, fifty cents. If no, it adds nothing.

"Do you support single-payer health care?" If yes, it adds $5.00 to your tax. If no, it adds $250.00 to help pay for uninsured people who show up at hospitals.

Funding for police and fire protection is non-optional. Unfortunately, funding for politicians' salaries is, too (who would vote FOR that?); however, funding for their raises ISN'T.

Funding of roads is by automobile excise tax and gasoline tax.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Nov 9 2006, 08:30 AM) [snapback]346278[/snapback]</div>

Nobody's perfect. Sorry.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 9 2006, 06:27 PM) [snapback]346568[/snapback]</div>

I like it, but how do we fund the military with the line-item tax?