To Vote, Or Not To Vote (A Rant About Voting)

So this will be my first time to make a thread on this wonderful site that I have lurked on for many years. I signed up finally sometime last year but I have seen this site in 'better days'... if you will. My measly stats won't reflect me as an active member on this board, but I have finally come up with a rant to share that I'm guessing some could agree with, others, not so much... but for what it's worth...

Everyone needs to vote! If you are registered to vote... vote! If you are not registered to vote, get registered... and vote! Unless you are not qualified for one of the many reasons then I do not think it is right for you to just not vote. To get to the point of my rant let me start with a story.

So I work for a reputable oil & gas company in the business office building. Almost every single person in there at bare minimum is at least in college. I work with a lady in her late 30's and she is an obvious Hillary Clinton supporter. For a long time I just kept to myself, did my job, minded my own business only initiating conversation for small talk here and there. She is always happy to talk about her kids and I have a son myself so that could be our common ground of discussion 90% of the time. Well a while back during the whole FBI server investigation she had asked me what I thought of Hillary. Did I actually think she was a lying criminal? Why yes, but I made it sound a little more nicer than that at the time. I asked her straight up what did she see in Hillary and why does she plan on voting for her, and her response was simply because she was a woman and it would be nice to see the first female president. The conversation had a few tight twists and turns but it never got blown up too big as we have to work with each other and no reason to let our differences ruin a good thing. And for sure being that we both got degrees at the same community college, it would't end well...lol.

Now, now... hear me out. That story could go on a whole new tangent in here but the point I am trying to get across is, even though I may not agree with why she is voting, at least she is voting. Now this is where the rant begins. I am absolutely fed up with always seeing and hearing everyone all over the place talk about "I don't like the candidates..." or "I don't care who wins..." "...I'm not voting". I see it all over forums and social media, I hear it at work, bars, restaurants, even when I am not trying to eavesdrop in public but I catch it. I am not the type to try to sway people towards one candidate or another, BUT I sure will have some words if you say you can vote, but choose not to.

Seems to be a common choice of words among people in the 30 - 50 age group, could be wrong but it's almost like a whole two decades of people just don't give a damn. If you choose not to vote, so be it, BUT you DO NOT have a right to complain about who wins when it is over because you didn't put in your vote. Heck, I do not think you have a right to complain about things as of now before the ballots are cast. If you plan to sit at home on your rump or go out drinking with your buds while everyone else is in line to vote, so be it. Most people on this site seem bright enough to understand that there are more than just the two candidates you hear about day in and day out. Vote for another party, write someone in, but DO NOT continue to complain when honestly you not voting is partially the reason this country is going to crap!

But then the excuses always flow in. Voter fraud, system is rigged, yada-yada, well as I may find that to be plausible, it is why they are able to get away with it! Too many people just simply don't give a damn but are happy to b**ch, moan, and complain. If every citizen who was able to vote legally were to do so, I honestly believe we could get better quality of candidates and whatnot in the future. Now I feel this is a turning point in America for everyone. A lazy people make a care free nation. I am rather proud of the up and coming generation as they may not have the best judgement but at least they are swayed to vote. This isn't a thread about which side to vote for, just friggin vote!

Well hope that makes sense to someone, just something I been meaning to vent about, and ATS seemed like a good place for it as I feel I won't get as word raped as much as I would on Reddit or 4 Chan or something lol. I really mean this straight up, I do not want to hear anyone anywhere complaining about whatever should happen in the future if they didn't contribute their vote. Voting is something we as a nation and a proud peoples should be doing. I choose not to disclose who exactly my vote is going, and honestly I am still not too sure, but I will be at the polls.

/rant

a reply to: SkinnySteve
Well I give you your first flag and flag then. This isn't a rant, I'll show you a rant, lol.
If I lived there I would vote for trump, he reminds me of JFK. And if he wins he will need a lot of protection. I also think Hillery needs a new double, her current one is much older than her. So good luck my US friends.

Voting is a waste of time. From my understanding Hillary already has the electoral college votes that she needs to win the election and not a single ballot has been cast. The fix is in.

a reply to: SkinnySteve

There are lot of politically literate people who don't vote because there isn't a party or politician they agree with. This leaves them with a choice of voting for people/parties which go against their personal politics or not voting at all.

This is getting more exaggerated by the two party system.

Is there a party to cut back surveillance and give it oversight?
Is there a party to reduce defence spending?
Is there one that will roll back the interference with foreign nations?
One that will treat Israel and Saudi Arabia with the same moral measuring stick it applies to the Syrians or Russians?
One that will increase budgets for science research?
Reduce political interference in schools?
Repeal some of the more absurd PC laws?
Make Government 100% secular?
Detach political ideology from drug laws and prison sentencing?
Stop voting themselves pay rises when nobody else is getting them?

These are huge factors in my political outlook and voting for either party would see an increase in the first three on the list. Alternative parties fail on other levels or have politicians who sound so naive and idealistic you wouldn't want them in charge of the military or the economy.

And DAMN! The USA has two choices that really suck right now. Both will increase conflicts, increase defence spending, increase civil unrest and most definitely be giving themselves pay rises as the country feels voiceless. What's a vote worth? You choose to lose your right eye or lose your left eye. Is the *choice* really classed as participation?

"Most people on this site seem bright enough to understand that there are more than just the two candidates you hear about day in and day out. Vote for another party."
THIS!

Even if i believe that elections are just to fool the people. The people get remote controlled to vote for those candidates that are chosen by the individuals behind the curtains. Via MSM. If you get bombed for months with stories about only 2 candidates, how will you vote for another one than those two. I bet many people think they only can vote thise two evils. But there are lesser evils to vote, those that never have a real chance. So you don´t give away your voice to one of the two hyped candidates.

At least here in germany your voice will be counted to those parties or candidates that have the most voters. But if you vote a "party" like the car drivers party or, and this is my favourite, Die Partei! It´s a party created by satirists around Martin Sonneborn. So my vote doesn´t go to Merkel or one of those so called established parties, or even worse to nazi parties like the NPD and AfD.

And it would be wonderful if elections really were elections and not rigged ones. Nothing in this stage play happens without a reason. And "they" don´t risk to let the people decide, even if the people think so, because they are allowed to vote from time to time...

a reply to: SkinnySteve

If you choose not to vote, so be it, BUT you DO NOT have a right to complain about who wins when it is over because you didn't put in your vote.

LOL, people will complain (especially soldiers) and rights to do so have nothing to do with it.

I have come to the conclusion since 2004 that voting for one turd or the other is pointless. Even with Obama in 08, people did'nt vote for the guy because of his policies, they voted for him to "prove they weren't racist".

Much like your lady friend at work is going to vote for Hillary. Does'nt matter that HRC is a criminal, it just matters that she can go to the voting booth and feel good about herself for voting the first woman in office.

Face it ,its rigged trumps got more chance of replacing Kim Jong un .

Hey if he does win than maybe America will become great again , but if and when she does win , the USA is screwed .

She doesn't show 1c of passion .

And she's a 2 faced bitch as well .

Glad I'm in the uk because if I was going to attack America , id do it with Hilary in charge , with trump , not so much.

Tbh if she gets in the White House , her term will be from a bunker because America will get attacked , she won't know what to do , they will be infighting in the command , and she will fall ill again ( facepalm ) and it's not her fault ( facepalm ).

Kandinsky sums up the reasons many have for choosing to abstain. As for whether abstention invalidates people's opinions about any number of issues, I'll link to a post I made earlier about this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

... and leave it at that. I stand by everything I said there.

Peace.

I love it when people go all on about voting.

The strength of conditioning is as strong as with those that can't not go to church.

If they don't they feel like they are 'sinning'.

lulz

You can't begin to shed your programming until you stop running on autopilot.

a reply to: SkinnySteve

I get your point, and I'm a big advocate of getting people out to vote, but here's the reality of the situation in America:

Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2&3:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.

As you'll note in both of those clauses, there is not a point, at all, where the power to choose the president rests in the popular vote of the citizens of our country. And to make matters worse about how negated our individual votes can truly be, check out this site to see some of the concerns that I'm talking about. These are my two biggest that aren't addressed directly in the Constitution (emphasis mine):

The winner-take-all method of distributing electoral votes

The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.

...

Since all but two states allocate their votes via a winner-take-all method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that clearly favors one candidate.

...

The winner-take-all rule also leads to lower voter turnout in states where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the winner takes all the electoral votes.

Unbound Electors

There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. Even in the states that do have control, often the punishment or repercussion is slim or nothing (some states issue only minimal fines as punishment), although some states instigate criminal charges ranging from a simple misdemeanor to a fourth degree felony.

...

Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state's law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District's unfair voting rights.

Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.

This inconsistency allows for discrepancies in our electoral system. The electors from nearly half of the states can vote however they wish, regardless of the popular will of the state.

In the founding of our nation, the Electoral College was established to prevent the people from making "uneducated" decisions.

As I often cite, that last sentence is why the EC is an outdated relic of yesteryear when our communication of a candidate's platform was so slow to make the rounds to all voters that we needed electors--we don't, anymore.

The electoral college should be abolished, but until that happens (which it probably never will, since people are too hungry for such power and politicians too happy to only pander to the few electors over the whole of America), our individual, popular votes really don't amount to a hill of beans.

I still vote, though, even with this understanding. I'm a sucker for punishment, I guess.

Vote early, and vote often

a reply to: avgguy

It's a waste of time because majority of Americans do not vote. You get what you deserve.

a reply to: neutronflux

The popular vote doesn't win elections in this country.

a reply to: avgguy

If you don't exercise the right to vote, it never will change. Or do you advocate something other than peaceful revolution through voting? Are senator's elected through the electoral college?

a reply to: avgguy

It most certainly does. Just because the popular vote in some states carry more value (ie electoral votes) than others, does not mean the popular vote didn't count.

A great post, and I agree with every word of it. And since we are ranting:

When someone says "there isn't a candidate who 100 percent represents my myopic checklist of ideals and desires, so I don't vote" it's just plain stupid. Of course not! But I bet there is a candidate who represents half of your ideals and desires for what you want a President to do. That not good enough for you? Then get into politics because you aren't going to find a candidate who is 100 percent on your personal political platform other than yourself.

"well I want a candidate who will end foreign support, bring down the deficit, protect marriage equality for all, hates guns, hates abortions, and loves weed." Jesus....

So and so candidate has stated that he/she is on board with almost all of those things you want...

"yeah but he/she hates weed so I just won't vote."

Dumb azz.

Hey genius, you know what else you are missing out on voting on? Your mayor. Your county commissioners. Your judges and sheriffs. Your state representatives and governor. You know, the people who very much more impact your daily life than ANY President has or ever will.

Fine, don't vote for President, but vote for the people and issues in your community. Same date. Same polling location.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The UK has a three-line whip. It's part of the hierarchy of Party politics.

A three line whip is when party leaders require their politicians to attend a vote and vote as directed. Subsequent victories are vaunted as democracy in action and a triumph for the common good.

MPs can vote against the whip (it happens) as long as they accept it will restrict their influence and commit them to the back-benches - the grunts. Being on the back-benches is like being the last guy picked for the team and ensures minimal respect and almost zero opportunities for high office.

The three line whip is brought out for crucial votes in Parliament. Wiki page on Chief Whip (UK)

I haven't voted in a US election for a while. I figured that even though I legally CAN, I shouldn't, since I don't live there anymore and won't live with the consequences.

But then FATCA came along and I learned I have to pay taxes in the US anyway, and I started to feel I should vote.

The people who say they are going to vote for Trump only because they are sick of the usual politics and he is different-

why not really go rogue and break out of the idiotic two party system???

Voting for a third party never sounded better to me. It's time. Tell 'em to shove Clinton and Trump where the sun don't shine! Be courageous people!

Can't complain, hah! Come on. Nope, not voting for Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich. Get off the high horses because voting one of those only perpetuates the mess.

Last time I voted third party, was blamed from each side for letting the other win. So, I can only vote for lesser of the two evils now? NOPE sorry.

a reply to: SkinnySteve

I don't vote, won't vote and believe the crazy people still do vote.
Wanna know why?

IT'S RIGGED!

And it's so obvious!

It's not just the elections by any means.

Voting is a waste of time. From my understanding Hillary already has the electoral college votes that she needs to win the election and not a single ballot has been cast. The fix is in.

She doesn't have ALL she needs, but she does have many likely in the bag (going by past election trends of states). There are a few different swing states that could still realistically hand Trump a victory, but he'd need nearly ALL of them.

Of course, there's always the chance that her health simply doesn't allow her to make it through the rest of the campaign. She's got a scheduled appearance tomorrow, then next at Monday's debate. Time will tell. I have a feeling her alleged PD is likely too advanced for them to keep covering it up, doping her up and shoving her out there.

As for the double...on the contrary, her double is actually about 10 years younger and 20 lbs lighter in appearance. We saw her on Sunday after Hillary's fall, posing with the same little girl actress that did a photo op piece with the Pope a while back. But, it was the real (old) Hillary we saw in Greensboro, so they somehow got her up to snuff again.