I ended up going to vote anyways. Found out the polling place was closer than I'd originally thought.

Three of the four offices on the ballot were uncontested. The only one that was contested has one candidate leading in the double digits in the polls over the past year. So...yay for my 'choice' of my political leaders.

In reply to fireflights (msg # 31):

The amendment has nothing to do with that, by all means hold that opinion but there's nothing of actual black and white substance to that interpretation. And I would personally think that in matters in which I have no place, yes it is fine to be told to be quiet.

You're making a conscious choice, you live with the consequences.

Laws like your amendments depend on people who expressed their opinions.  If no one voted, you might end up with no such rights.  It's possible but rare that there isn't a candidate who is slightly less sleazy than the rest, but I agree about the campaigns that rest on slamming the opponents.  Unfortunately Canada seems to be taking up that also.  Mostly when I hear that kind of thing, I'm only more likely to vote for the person being slammed, on the assumption that the slammer has no real platform of his own to stand on.

I do think people who don't vote shouldn't complain, though I don't object if you complain about the person you voted for - unless you vote for him/her again!

In reply to Sir_Chivalry (msg # 33):

And in the event that someone were to say that, that as I had no place in the decision I should shut up: I would then tell them to shut up and see how they liked it. They were after all complaining about my decision to speak, something they had no say in, and therefore by their own logic should have nothing to say about it.

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg # 35):

But if you're subscribing to the logic presented, it's a non issue since you'd have not spoken about something you exempted yourself willingly from in the first place.

I still fail to see how failing to vote for someone takes away your place to speak up.

If I didn't vote for a representative in another district, because I don't live in that district, can I not still voice my concerns about that representative's behavior? If I didn't take part in a public protest against a policy, am I not allowed to voice concerns about that policy after the fact? If I didn't write a letter to the editor about a referendum on a ballot, does that mean I cannot complain about said referendum if it passes? Those are all other ways of opting into the conversation, right?

Or if I fail to vote in an election because I would be happy with either candidate winning, and then one candidate reveals that he is a supporter of an abhorrent new policy, does that mean I cannot complain about the new policy?

By your logic, I suppose not, since I made a conscious choice not to vote/protest/write/assemble/move to another district, so I suppose I should just keep my mouth shut and live with the consequences, right?

Why is voting the magical act that gives you the right to complain?
This message was last edited by the user at 01:12, Wed 05 Nov 2014.

I voted, but I'm not going to look down on people who choose not to. Voting wouldn't be a "freedom" if it wasn't a choice, and it wouldn't be a true choice if both options weren't legitimate.

Some argue that voting legitimizes a broken system, that the illusion of participatory government voting discourages a disenfranchised public from upsetting the status quo through meaningful protest with true economic consequences, that voting (and the attitude that one MUST vote) is nothing but a safety valve to channel dissent into irrelevant symbolism.

I don't know about that, but if someone wants to make a statement by abstaining from voting, then they have a right to make that statement.

Of course if they're just lazy, then yeah, their inaction is its own statement, but just "not voting" isn't automatic forfeiture of the right to hold an opinion.

You also have people like myself that just don't like (or know) enough about the candidates.  I don't like any of the bigger ones and the smaller ones have standard party pages.

Spoiling your ballot is a powerful weapon in an election. Just imagine that if everyone who didn't vote (for whatever reason) actually went to the polls and wrote "you're all a bunch of self-centred idiots" or words to that effect on their ballot paper. Maybe the spoiled ballots would outnumber the other candidates. That would send a message to the candidates that the electorate does care, and that they aren't happy.

Sadly I doubt it would happen for anything past a small town election.  To many people happily vote their party without even knowing the issues.

In Britain we don't get to vote until  next year but I will be there putting my X on the paper.

It is very important no matter where you live voting gives you the right to try to change your country for the better. I just wish the people we put in power realised they were put there by us to represent us not their own agendas.

There are some really dedicated people in government who really believe they can make a difference but then there are others who see it as a gravy train to ride all the way and grab what they can on the way.

Vote it can make a difference

My mother was a local president of the League of Women Voters, among other things.

I have voted in every election since becoming eligible to do so.

I'll happily vote when I find a candidate that I at least agree with 51%+ on what they stand for and don't fall into the crap flinging campaigns.  If you can't campaign without trying to smear your opponent, you don't need to be in office.

While there are valid reasons for not voting, it implies "I believe all the available candidates would be exactly identical in performance" which isn't logical.

Surely, even if there are two candidates and you hate both of them, you must believe that one will probably cause more damage (or try to).

The problem with sitting out an election is not the message it gives to the politicians, or the people, it is the message it gives to the strategists.

And that is this:  If the analysis they did says you were more likely to vote for the other guy, and then through mud slinging they made the other guy sling mud back and you decided the campaign was so dirty that no one got your vote...

... the mudslinging worked.

That's what it's there for.  The tactic of mudslinging is designed not to win over votes for your guy, but to deny them to the other guy.  Shrink the pool of actual voters, and concentrate on those who will actually vote.

You know, Eur, I used to vote. I really thought my vote could make a difference until I saw the politicians for what they are greedy power mongers. So until I find someone who is not in it for himself or herself, I will continue to withhold my vote because I refuse to say I voted someone in who is doing more harm then good. It's a personal preference for all of us and it is human nature to try to sway someone to our cause or choices, but you have to understand that we all don't fall in line. We are individuals with our own choices and our own voice, so to tell us we have to vote, that's not going to sway us that don't want to vote. And this whole the lesser of two evils doesn't work, people voted obama in because they thought he was the lesser of two evils and look where that got us. Honestly, I refuse to vote for corrupt politicians and since there will never be a non corrupt politician out there, then I shall never vote again and that is my choice, mine alone.

Popular vote is no more than a suggestion for those that hold electoral votes, with the amount of money that passes hands in our government who is say they even take our advice. They will choose whichever figure head they feel conveys their ideals the best, a politician is just a fall guy.

On the subject of corruption and broken political systems, this short series within an awesome series (that anyone who enjoys games, tabletop, video, or otherwise should watch) might be of interest to some of you. It really does sort of simplify given their length, but it's interesting stuff to think about

Pt 1 : http://youtu.be/Xa-vQ0L77LY
Pt 2 : http://youtu.be/Mu5QZmPG8zk
Pt 3 : http://youtu.be/0X2es__Wtuk

My favorite go to youtube channel for everything political is CGP Grey.

https://www.youtube.com/channe..._jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w

Maybe to you, to most it implies that both candidates would be bad and I refuse to help either one get to a position where they will do poor jobs.



To me it's more like a question of "Do you want us to kill your brother or your sister?"  Not that either one will cause more or less damage.  They will cause different damage for certain, but looking at something where I have to choose damage to our social fabric or damage to our infrastructure, it's too difficult to say which is worse.



If someone ran a campaign where there was no mudslinging on their side, I would probably vote for them regardless of their stance, just to bolster that.  It almost happened here, but he decided to go to the 'dark side'.

So yes, the mudslinging works with me, it does deny my vote, but not the way they intend it too.  It denies my vote to the slinger.  Thing is I have yet to see a campaign where one side DOESN'T sling.

Unless you choose to write in a name in the "write in" section, that's not what you are doing.  In the US, you don't have to get the most people.  Just the most votes.  If only one person is going to vote, he decides, for everyone.  Therefore, all you do by not voting is reduce the pool the politicians are trying to attract.  Doesn't matter.  It might even help.

In fact, logically, it helps whichever side benefits from the lowest turnout.

So what you are doing does not have the effect you think it does. There is no way a judge is going to say "well, so many people didn't vote that I'm declaring this election invalid and NONE of you jerks win".  Instead, even if 99% of the people are too pissed off to vote, the remaining 1% decide the election.

So one of those jerks one, and by putting yourself out of consideration, you didn't prevent it, you only changed the "market".

It's kind of like with real estate.  Real estate is a funny thing.  If you own it, you are IN the the market, and you affect the market, whether you want to or not.  It's like this:  If you swear up and down you will never, ever ever have any influence on the real estate market, and hang a "NOT FOR SALE NOT NOW NOT EVER" sign on your property... well, then the market scarcity you just caused has an effect on prices.  You can't help being a market factor.

Or an election factor.

And they know.  And often, the LIKE that.  Rest assured, somewhere, some analyst has done the datamining and determined the profile of people who don't have to be considered because they are too mad to vote.



But that's part of the plan.  They know full well that when slinging mud, the other side is goaded to sling back- by their own advisers, who are political hacks.  And it's easy.

It's just like the tactics of the Internet Forum Troll- be nasty, and you make the other side nasty.  In fact, of the political activist supporter types I know (those people you always see in news coverage of party HQ, partying and waving and wearing huge buttons) they pretty much ARE trolls, just being paid for it.  They are already spoiling for a fight, and when the chance comes up they take it.

But it's a calculated move.  It works like this.  Both parties have their rock solid supporters.  Always.  But that's usually not enough... unless... if your rock solid supporters outnumber HIS rock supporters, then it's to your advantage to make the fight as icky as you can, to turn off everyone in the middle.  Reduce the middle, and you make it a "who can turn out the base" battle.

Bear in mind the weird world of the political campaign.  Like an internet chat room, people actually accept that they can say things that they simply will never be called to the carpet for.  Ever.  So they go hog wild.

Once more I ask everyone to note that power has changed hands in a peaceful manner. There have been no tanks in the streets, no soldiers at the polling places and no women or children dragged through the streets, no one has been abducted or tortured, no windows have been broken. After two hundred years, whether you like the system or not, the system still works the way it was intended.

I know a number of politicians (Canadian ones though) personally.  Especially the one I live with, of course.  Some of them are every bit as bad as you are talking about, but some are just trying to do a decent job.

One big problem I see with politics is the price of running.  Even in municipal elections, the cost is high compared to the potential 'gain', and the higher you go the worse it gets.  So it's not just what candidates end up 'owing' their financial supporters, it's the division between them and the average worker.  There was an interesting article in the Toronto Star about the demographics of the three main mayoral candidates, where they lived, who was most likely to support them, and how likely/unlikely those people were to actually get out and vote, and the policies they were supporting respectively.

I will point out, that as the election in question is over, this thread is no longer required in any capacity...

I think the issue is not about whether you can complain, but whether you can complain about the person who was elected.  Voting is the mechanism whereby you take a definite action in putting a person in office.  If you don't vote, you are abandoning the most symbolic action and essentially stating (by omission) that you don't care to have any influence on the outcome of an election and that you are abandoning one of your civic duties.

It therefore seems contradictory that you would then feel comfortable complaining when you did not even vote one way or the other.  I always vote, so I always feel very comfortable complaining, even if it's about the guy I voted for.  :)

As the OP has pointed out, this thread has now become moot and is, in fact, wandering far off-topic (that topic being a reminder to vote).
This message was last edited by the user at 17:34, Thu 06 Nov 2014.