It depends on what is being followed. Everyone follows someone or something eventually, but the higher the standard the shorter the list you follow and the longer the list behind.

I agree with Warch about the vote being an act of personal empowerment and integrity. What matters most is the message we give ourselves. We then take that inner message and send it out to the world. So many people say they didn't vote because there was nothing and no one worth voting for. I think this is a cop-out. For one thing, and I'm sure it wasn't alone, Colorado had about 12 people on the presidential ballot list. The libertarian, the green party, the Constitutional reform party, 3 flavors of socialist party, and a couple of other parties were all represented. Are you that smug that you would write off every single one of these options? And before you say it wouldn't have counted because it would have been for an inconsequential 'third' party consider this: I don't know who MIGHT have gotten your vote, but suppose you and those other couldn't be bothered voters had an affinity for the libertarians or the greens. All of you going out there and casting a vote for that party would have made a profound impact on the national political scene. Hell, all of you going out there and splitting your vote 12 ways among those third parties would have made a profound impact. But you couldn't be bothered. I have no respect for that attitude.

I really hate that word, empowerment. People make it sound like talisman or shouting SHAZAM or something.

I'm of the opinion that by the time someone has reached the level where they can stand even the slightest chance of effectiveness in politics that they are beholden to so many other interests that they are no longer doing their job. Do you honestly believe that Bush was innocent of favoring the oil interests? Do you really think that Kerry would have been able to overcome Congress? Do you truly feel that a self-professed man of faith is going to cut any other truly divergent denominations any slack? Do you believe that anyone elected president in this day and age has much say in what that actually do?

In what way? Pass his own legislation? Probably not. Have his vetos upheld? Absolutely. Do you not even see the value of that?

Well, you are welcome to hate the word "empowerment" if you wish. It has gathered a rather touchy-feeling connotation of late, but it is my personal belief that the concept is still valid for all that.

I am no child. I understand all the stuff about wealth and power and national politics. Any candidate from either of the two mainstream parties who attains the presidential office will have sold most if not all of his soul long before. However, a Republican president is going to pull the nation toward one set of values while a Democratic president is going to be a force in the opposite direction on many questions. Look at the impact a minority group of voters - the religous right - has had upon the Republican party. Believe me, you are going to see more faith backed iniatives make headway in the coming four years than we ever have before. If you and your coherts had gone out and voted for the Greens or the Libertarians in the same way the religous right has gone out and voted, your voice would be heard on the national scene today just like theirs will be heard.

"Statistically insignificant," while small, is still infinitely greater than "zero."

The whole idea of voting, as I'm sure you know, is so the people can let their wishes be known. It's a form of communication. If you don't communicate in any way, the government will not take you into consideration. With voting, they will consider you. Probably not much, but they will consider you.

I understand from you that your lack of voting is supposed to be some form of communication. Maybe I misunderstand. If I do, I would like you to correct me.

A slacker doesn't vote because he is lazy. I'm not saying you are a slacker. You are actively not voting. Like you are putting effort into it, and are proud of that. You make a point of saying you are proud. You must have thought about it. Do you hope something positive will come of your not voting other than saving an hour or so standing in line?

I voted for Kerry, and I've felt pretty depressed since the election results.

You used the word empowered here- so those people are the voters? or the elected politicians? I argue that you cant clearly believe in democracy because the one precious thing that defines it, an individual's vote, you dont understand the value in casting for its own sake, not only if you can get what you want.

So things need to get worse. Less people need to participate. And this passivity will serve to break the system...more, or to a certain level. That dysfunction will then signal enlightenment and the moment to strike. Particpation will then, at that moment, be ok? What if you still lose? Thats the risk with a vote.

Sorry, I aint got that kinda time or timing. And I am more of a realist. Yes its hard. Its never going to be perfect, but it will only get better if you actually decide do something and participate. Think Local. Its not just about candidates. You can help vote down that local tax levy you dont want to pay. You may lose, but you can try. You can vote for a city council that responds to your issues or let others pick em. Find a candidate, build one, become one. That is the mess of democracy. Youre in it or youre not.

But in a pinch, to vote none, you take a pen and write n-o-n-e. and if faced with a touchscreen I'm guessing there must be a way to handle write ins. And a little old lady from your neighborhood, probably from the league of women voters, will handle your ballot with the utmost care, like a precious gift, because she too believes in democracy. Your dissent or approval will be recorded, and someone with a name on the ballot that you did not vote for will win. But losing voter, you have believed in democracy enough, valued it enough, to be counted even as one.

Hey Trouble, dont mean to attack you so personally, I've read enough to know that youre frustrated and sincerely want candidates you value and desire reforms in the power structure. I totally understand and respect that. What I will never get is your rationale for passivity, strategic or otherwise.

Again, I am in agreement with Warch. This was not only a National election, but a local one, as well, and on the local level a single individual can make an impact. Just an example: Last year the city council of my town had voted to outsource the local police and fire dispatch center to the great metropolitan area which adjoins us to the east. Many people in my town were upset about this. I was one of them. I put out a flyer about this issue and distributed it all over town. At the next city council meeting, there was an overflow of citizen attendees, many waving my flyer. Some even came up to shake my hand when they found out that I was the author. The City Fathers ended up recinding their decision. So you see, even one person CAN make a difference if they care to try.

i voted for Bush for the POTUS slot. i voted for every L,I,D for the rest of the spots.

On that level, and even the parish (that would be count for you foreigners) level I agree that there can be some impact by an individual vote.

Its all connected, even if faintly.