Failing to Vote

KMO · Nov 9, 2006

From The Onion: Politicians Sweep Midterm Elections

WASHINGTON, DCâ€”After months of aggressive campaigning and with nearly 99 percent of ballots counted, politicians were the big winners in Tuesday's midterm election, taking all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, retaining a majority with 100 out of 100 seats in the Senate, and pushing political candidates to victory in each of the 36 gubernatorial races up for grabs.[/b]
Click to expand...

Schmika · Nov 9, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 9 2006, 01:27 PM) [snapback]346275[/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.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Nice opinion...I disagree.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 9 2006, 01:56 PM) [snapback]346293[/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
[/b]
Click to expand...

Please expalin further. SOMEONE will be voted into office. It doesn't matter if you don't care....the effective result is ONE person will win. If EVERYONE did not vote, and the candidate voted for himself...he still won.

You are speaking of a distinction w/o a difference. RESULTS are what counts.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 9 2006, 02:38 PM) [snapback]346328[/snapback]</div>

Here Schmika, this should make you feel better :

[/b]
Click to expand...

That's funny

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cheap! @ Nov 9 2006, 02:53 PM) [snapback]346338[/snapback]</div>

So your saying if I don't vote, I'll always be on the winning team?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yep!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 9 2006, 07:27 PM) [snapback]346568[/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.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Actually, this is an intriguing idea. But I like the idea that ALL ballot measures be given a cost. It would be easy to start with property taxes. Before you select yes, you would enter your property address and it would immediately pop up how much that levy is going to cost AND list what you are already paying.

livelychick · Nov 10, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 9 2006, 05:27 PM) [snapback]346568[/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.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Love the way you think!

Syclone · Nov 10, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 8 2006, 08:27 PM) [snapback]345945[/snapback]</div>

A lot of people don't vote. There are many, many excuses. I want to posit this thought (I like that word "posit", have no idea what it means)

I have said previously, If only 30% of the voters turned out, and a candidate won by 50.1% of that vote, he effectively got 85% of the vote....WHAT A MANDATE!!!!!!!
[/b]
Click to expand...

I largely agree with your opinion about non-voters. I've often hoped that there would be a lever (still old fashioned and safe in NY) that said "none of the above" But, I vote in every election ( have been for 51 years).

I would like to point out that, in addition to your self-confessed weakness in English ( I never looked up "posit" either), your math is suspect. If 51% of the voters are for a candidate and there is a 30% turnout that is a 15.3% mandate. Not good!

PA · Nov 10, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syclone @ Nov 10 2006, 10:22 AM) [snapback]346860[/snapback]</div>

I largely agree with your opinion about non-voters. I've often hoped that there would be a lever (still old fashioned and safe in NY) that said "none of the above" But, I vote in every election ( have been for 51 years).[/b]
Click to expand...

If you cast a ballot, but don't pick a candidate, would that be the same thing as"none of the above"?

I would like to point out that, in addition to your self-confessed weakness in English ( I never looked up "posit" either), your math is suspect. If 51% of the voters are for a candidate and there is a 30% turnout that is a 15.3% mandate. Not good!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yes, I was wondering about the math too, until I realized that 85% is what's left over from 15%. So perhaps it's OK if the intent was to say that 85% was the votes he DIDN'T get.

daniel · Nov 10, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Nov 10 2006, 07:23 AM) [snapback]346884[/snapback]</div>

If you cast a ballot, but don't pick a candidate, would that be the same thing as"none of the above"?
[/b]
Click to expand...

No, it would not. Since in America we elect candidates by plurality, not majority, whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. Empty ballots would have no effect.

A "None of the above" choice would allow for the possibility that, if "None of the above" gets more votes than any single candidate, they would ALL lose and the election would have to be held again.

Schmika · Nov 10, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 10 2006, 05:10 PM) [snapback]347098[/snapback]</div>

No, it would not. Since in America we elect candidates by plurality, not majority, whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. Empty ballots would have no effect.

A "None of the above" choice would allow for the possibility that, if "None of the above" gets more votes than any single candidate, they would ALL lose and the election would have to be held again.
[/b]
Click to expand...

IT HAPPENED AGAIN!!!! I agree with this..it has merit. Would likely weed out the extremists on both ends...hmmmmm

Failing to Vote

KMO Senior Member

Schmika New Member

livelychick Missin' My Prius

Syclone Member

PA Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

Schmika New Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Failing to Vote

KMO Senior Member

Schmika New Member

livelychick Missin' My Prius

Syclone Member

PA Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

Schmika New Member