Who did YOU vote for

There's no shame in voting for the loser.. be thruthful ;)

Didn't vote and proud of it.

Troubleshooter wrote:

Didn't vote and proud of it.

You should have written someone in. There is nothing to be proud of.

Just because someone didn't win an election, doesn't mean they're a loser.

glatt wrote:

You should have written someone in. There is nothing to be proud of.

Why should I have written someone in?

And go into detail, I've heard a lot of reasons why I should have voted that don't really hold any water. Maybe your reasons are different.

See my post here.

Troubleshooter wrote:

Why should I have written someone in?

And go into detail, I've heard a lot of reasons why I should have voted that don't really hold any water. Maybe your reasons are different.

See my post here.

I don't really understand your reasoning after reading your post, but it sounds like you didn't like the choice offered to you. There are 300 million americans. Surely one of them is qualified in your mind to have the job. You should have written that person in.

Not voting doesn't send any message at all other than you are a slacker. That may not be the message you want to send, but it's the one you are sending. Most people who don't vote think it doesn't matter, or they don't care, or they can't be bothered, etc. You group yourself with those people if you don't vote, and any protest you may be making is drowned out by the slacker company you keep.

If you want to send a message that you don't like any of the choices, but would vote for someone good if they presented themselves, then you need to write someone in. That shows you care enough to vote, and are not a slacker. It also shows you don't like the choices.

Not voting is throwing your voice away. At least a write-in will give you some voice.

Who knows, maybe I read you wrong, and you want to be a slacker not a protestor. If that's the case, then you shouldn't vote. But there is nothing to be proud of there.

glatt wrote:

I don't really understand your reasoning after reading your post, but it sounds like you didn't like the choice offered to you. There are 300 million americans. Surely one of them is qualified in your mind to have the job. You should have written that person in.

glatt wrote:

If you want to send a message that you don't like any of the choices, but would vote for someone good if they presented themselves, then you need to write someone in. That shows you care enough to vote, and are not a slacker. It also shows you don't like the choices.

Not voting is throwing your voice away. At least a write-in will give you some voice.

Voting for someone is indicative of approval of that person. I would not want to send the message that I approve of Bush or Kerry.

If a write in is a voice then show me a list of the write ins for the election. If that voice is truly heard then such a list will exist otherwise it's weeping in the dark.

glatt wrote:

Not voting doesn't send any message at all other than you are a slacker. That may not be the message you want to send, but it's the one you are sending. Most people who don't vote think it doesn't matter, or they don't care, or they can't be bothered, etc. You group yourself with those people if you don't vote, and any protest you may be making is drowned out by the slacker company you keep.

I am not most people. Most people rely on outside faculties for most of their decisions. Any message derived from my actions, other than the result, is merely that persons inability or lack of desire to know the truth.

I am anything but a slacker. I work, I'm in school and I have a family. My ultimate goal is to be an instructor. I'm hoping to break people free from the moribund habits that they have and realize that change is becoming more and more necessary.

glatt wrote:

Who knows, maybe I read you wrong, and you want to be a slacker not a protestor. If that's the case, then you shouldn't vote. But there is nothing to be proud of there.

You have missed the mark severely.

I'm not mad, just disappointed.

I have read a few posts by you on this topic, but I still don't understand what you are trying to say other than you didn't like Bush or Kerry. If I don't understand, then what chance is there that any party or candidate is going to understand what you are trying to communicate with your lack of a vote? They don't even have your posts to read.

Let's look at it from another angle. What do you hope to accomplish with your lack of voting? It sounds like you are trying to accomplish something. Is that correct? Is it that your time is more valuable than the very slight impact your vote will have? That's the slacker view. Is it that you think that if enough people don't vote, some party will come to court you? Is it something else?

I understand the idea that any single vote will have an almost negligible impact on the outcome. A write-in vote (which, by the way, should be on a list of results in your county somewhere) has even less impact. But no vote has zero impact.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how much impact a write in vote can have.

Numbers are sufficient, I don't require a list of every written in item, just how many occurred.

Zero and statistically insignificant are still nothing.

This is not about math. A write in vote is your personal act of demonstrating that you do indeed care about what you profess. Its your stand. It counts for that. It means that. And with out it, your words of protest and change ring hollow.

You say that you wish to help " break people free from the moribund habits that they have and realize that change is becoming more and more necessary". Well, you have to not just talk, but walk. That is the meaning in your "meaningless" write in. Its the start of change.

warch wrote:

This is not about math. A write in vote is your personal act of demonstrating that you do indeed care about what you profess. Its your stand. It counts for that. It means that. And with out it, your words of protest and change ring hollow.

You say that you wish to help " break people free from the moribund habits that they have and realize that change is becoming more and more necessary". Well, you have to not just talk, but walk. That is the meaning in your "meaningless" write in. A meaningless action towards change.

Do I get pictures to go with that or do I just run around in circles like it sounds?

If I profess that there is no one worth voting for and then vote then voting would be a lie correct?

Maybe I am mistaken...do you support democracy at all? or advocate anarchy? which is fine, just be clear yourself.

If you still feel that there is worth in a democratic government, are interested in change but feel that there is no one you can support in this job, then vote "none". with out that act, your claim to that act, you are just blowing air.

I'm saying that you vote your convicitions and you vote for yourself first, the tally is secondary.

One other thing, you sound only willing to act for change when you know its a sure thing, when there is critical mass. So you follow, eventually, rather than lead.

I knew someone that wrote in Abraham Lincoln. Don't forget to vote locally. Your vote does count.

warch wrote:

Maybe I am mistaken...do you support democracy at all? or advocate anarchy? which is fine, just be clear yourself.

If you still feel that there is worth in a democratic government, are interested in change but feel that there is no one you can support in this job, then vote "none". with out that act, your claim to that act, you are just blowing air.

I'm saying that you vote your convicitions and you vote for yourself first, the tally is secondary.

I believe in democracy. I also believe that our current system is broken. The people who are empowered to fix it at the moment are pretty easily convinced of what they should think.

I'm also of the opinion that things won't get fixed until they break a little more.

How exactly does one go about voting "none?"

warch wrote:

One other thing, you sound only willing to act for change when you know its a sure thing, when there is critical mass. So you follow, eventually, rather than lead.

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.

marichiko wrote:

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?

Troubleshooter wrote:

Do you really think that Kerry would have been able to overcome Congress?

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

Troubleshooter wrote:

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?

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.

Troubleshooter wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to show me how much impact a write in vote can have.

Numbers are sufficient, I don't require a list of every written in item, just how many occurred.

Zero and statistically insignificant are still nothing.

"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.

I believe in democracy. I also believe that our current system is broken. The people who are empowered to fix it at the moment are pretty easily convinced of what they should think.

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.

I'm also of the opinion that things won't get fixed until they break a little more.

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.

marichiko wrote:

The City Fathers ended up recinding their decision. So you see, even one person CAN make a difference if they care to try.

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.