The Cellar - View Single Post

breakingnews · 11-03-2004, 04:37 PM

I have been thinking long and hard about this issue for a couple days now. I was undecided about the two major candidates (and still am, regardless of Bush winning), and told friends that I contemplated withholding my vote for the lack of a compelling reason to cast a ballot for either. I offered voting for Nader as an alternative, but was rebutted by, "What's the point of that?"

I was told, "It's your duty as a citizen," and later that I should vote because I need to "exercise [my] right to vote." Is it not also my choice whether I want to add a share to Bush's or Kerry's tally? If I disapprove of both candidates, can you tell me a reason, as one friend suggested, why I should just vote for one of them on a whim?

If the voting proportion was much larger, like 99%, the abstention of votes would have a much greater impact - sends a strong indication of disapproval all around. Given the current circumstances, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Instead, a larger voter turn-out signals that more Americans - apparently - care about who will be president (though it's really a contest of getting someone *out* of office, IMO).

What I wonder is how many of those votes came from fair weather fans or voters who are riding on the bandwagon. I believe that as a citizen, I carry the obligation of gaining a detailed knowledge of current events and developing a stance on the issues at stake in the election. I'm sure there are lots of people who read up and understand what is going on, or naively take a stance based on strong interpersonal, family or moral choices. For the rest of America, though, it's all about reigning in voters with whatever you can: scare tactics, pandering to special interests, biased research. I am surprised that even among my friends, who are well educated and come from middle/upper-class families, there are quite a few who speak to one side of an issue but have NO effin' clue about what the other half thinks. That concerns me - while it's probably not true for the majority (or is it?), I have a feeling some of these voters are pulling levers because their friends say to do so.

Perhaps that's a reason our democracy is absurd. The Declaration and the Constitution were developed at a time when politics ruled the land down to the very seat of the pants the early Americans wore. These days, you could largely go about your ways without even the slightest thought of making political choices. Why does everything have to be political, anyway? The fundamentals of this country are a little ridiculous.

I did, in fact, cast a vote for Mr. Nader. I was torn between my smelly Republican uppercrust parents (I can discuss that later - very good issue) and my super-Democratic friends. Initially I leaned in W.'s favor, because I felt more of an allegiance to my family and their stance than that of my friend's. This way, I did my part as a citizen while essentially doing nothing. Saves me the trouble of explaining why I wouldn't vote. (Anyway, Kerry won both NJ and NY, the two places I had the choice of voting.)

11-03-2004, 04:37 PM	#8
breakingnews Q_Q Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: somewhere in between Posts: 995	I have been thinking long and hard about this issue for a couple days now. I was undecided about the two major candidates (and still am, regardless of Bush winning), and told friends that I contemplated withholding my vote for the lack of a compelling reason to cast a ballot for either. I offered voting for Nader as an alternative, but was rebutted by, "What's the point of that?" I was told, "It's your duty as a citizen," and later that I should vote because I need to "exercise [my] right to vote." Is it not also my choice whether I want to add a share to Bush's or Kerry's tally? If I disapprove of both candidates, can you tell me a reason, as one friend suggested, why I should just vote for one of them on a whim? If the voting proportion was much larger, like 99%, the abstention of votes would have a much greater impact - sends a strong indication of disapproval all around. Given the current circumstances, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Instead, a larger voter turn-out signals that more Americans - apparently - care about who will be president (though it's really a contest of getting someone out of office, IMO). What I wonder is how many of those votes came from fair weather fans or voters who are riding on the bandwagon. I believe that as a citizen, I carry the obligation of gaining a detailed knowledge of current events and developing a stance on the issues at stake in the election. I'm sure there are lots of people who read up and understand what is going on, or naively take a stance based on strong interpersonal, family or moral choices. For the rest of America, though, it's all about reigning in voters with whatever you can: scare tactics, pandering to special interests, biased research. I am surprised that even among my friends, who are well educated and come from middle/upper-class families, there are quite a few who speak to one side of an issue but have NO effin' clue about what the other half thinks. That concerns me - while it's probably not true for the majority (or is it?), I have a feeling some of these voters are pulling levers because their friends say to do so. Perhaps that's a reason our democracy is absurd. The Declaration and the Constitution were developed at a time when politics ruled the land down to the very seat of the pants the early Americans wore. These days, you could largely go about your ways without even the slightest thought of making political choices. Why does everything have to be political, anyway? The fundamentals of this country are a little ridiculous. I did, in fact, cast a vote for Mr. Nader. I was torn between my smelly Republican uppercrust parents (I can discuss that later - very good issue) and my super-Democratic friends. Initially I leaned in W.'s favor, because I felt more of an allegiance to my family and their stance than that of my friend's. This way, I did my part as a citizen while essentially doing nothing. Saves me the trouble of explaining why I wouldn't vote. (Anyway, Kerry won both NJ and NY, the two places I had the choice of voting.)