jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (38 posts)

Is it a waste of time to vote?

  1. rhamson profile image77
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    With the recent revelations about ACORN and the suspect Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 is it possible the validity of the vote has been compromised?

    Politicians have had one issue to deal with from the beginning of this country and that is being voted out of office.  The brazen and often seemingly corrupt legislation slanted towards special interest has been the fruits of many congress menbers efforts.  With the vote compromised they can rule in autonomy.

    1. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      voting is relivant, and necessary, and we nned it for real. 2012, this idealistic dreamer/ harvard socialite self-arrogant opertunist has to go!

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know if he is all that but I have to wonder what the slime on the hill are going to offer up next.  With the rapists, criminals and other miscreants that are up there I don't know if we have a chance of getting the right guy in office.  Doesn't it stand to reason that if the cesspool of slime in charge were from where we picked the next leader that the slimiest would be the winner?

    2. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No I don't think it's a waste of time. I do think we need to find a way to separate the money from the elections and we need some rule changes to take away the advantage of incumbency.

    3. 0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Suspect elections? Bush won, get over it!

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ipso defacto you are correct but don't you agree there are people who don't accept it and it hinders their take on whether the vote is compromised?

        1. 0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The only people not accepting it are those incapable of understanding the rule of law, and those people do not need to vote!

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            In a perfect world I would agree but what about the politics of it? Is there any room to draw some reluctance to believe that the law might have been compromised and therefore could be again? 

            Is it good enough to write it off as justice being blind?

    4. ledefensetech profile image81
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, voting is a waste of time.  We are, at most, given two choices in any election.  We vote people according to party, not based on their character and integrity.  Is it any wonder there is so much slime and corruption in Washington?  You've said it yourself, you continually vote the incumbent out.  All you do is switch parties, the faces may change but the system itself doesn't.

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No, voting is most certainly not a waste of time. Complaining while willfully abandoning your rights and responsibilities is more than a waste of time, it is a slap in the face to all those who have helped secure our freedoms.

        1. 0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, gotta agree with this

      2. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
        Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        There are lots of frustrated voters out there.  The answer is not to stop going to the polls.  If there is a candidate from another party outside of the Dems or the GOP vote there, assuming the two primaries don't do it for you.  Until Americans actually start voting their conscience the mess will continue ad infinitum.

        You know Ross Perot got nearly 20,000,000 votes (19%) in 1992 because voters were frustrated.  You know what, though, he's a billionaire.  Otherwise it's doubtful he would have gotten 1,000,000.  It's just wrong that money is that much tied up into deciding who has our best interests at heart.  How many billionaires are there voting?  I'm not saying anything about Ross Perot's viability as a President, rather my point is to illustrate how unfair the two-party control of the system is to voters at large.  Similar economic circumstances to those surrounding the 1992 elections are now presenting themselves, and if those that have been too frustrated to make it to vote would just have their say it would hopefully send a message reminding the career politicians that, according to the COTUS, they work for us.

      3. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        But would you agree that change comes about slowly and that even if it is a very big wheel to move, the hardest part is to start it rolling?

        The system is broken yes, but we hold the keys to change it if we have the will.  Your apothy is what the slime on the hill want and work for.  Don't just give it to them.

        1. ledefensetech profile image81
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Depends.  Change can come very quickly.  Or it can start slowly, cause people to become impatient and then things can quickly change thorough violence.  The evidence is littered throughout history, something few people read and understand the significance of these days.

          Our problem with forcing change to stick is the way the government has it's fingers in just about every economic pie there is.  To a certain extent every business has to invest in lobbying for their unique special interest, otherwise the sides with better lobbyists will win and the losers will lose their livelihood.

          Would you agree that the major problem is the size and scope of the government?

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yes I woould agree with the size of government being too big.  A general formula I have with business is that there should be at least 5-7 actual workers to every 1 supporting office worker besides sales staff.

            The other thing that has to happen with regards to government is accoutability.  Far too many excesses are being taken and the ability to rectify them is far too difficult.  If you try to get someone in the government held accountable you find out very quickly that the ball is in their court and you have a very difficult uphill battle.

            But back to voting and choosing new blood over an incumbent has of course to be responsible.  I would not vote a convicted felon to the office of sheriff or a known embezzler to county clerk but given a resonable candidate I would vote the incumbent out.  Other things come into play such as party affiliation and whether they want to go a direction I don't agree with.  The fact remains that even if I vote for something you don't agree with you can cancel me out with your vote and that my friend is part of how it works.  It also cancels out the slime on the hill the same way.

            1. ledefensetech profile image81
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              How do you consider a choice between a Republican and a Democrat a choice?  While the rank and file may hold different views, the leadership of both parties seem to have similar views on the power and scope of government.  All you have to do is look at the history of our last four or five Presidents from either party to see that they both have increased the size and scope of government.  So I ask again, how exactly is choosing between one party and the other, which have both expanded the size and scope of the government, any choice at all? 

              Would you say that a government worker is analogous to your private sector worker or the private sector support staff?

    5. texshelters profile image86
      texsheltersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If you think that voting is ONLY the presidential race, it is a waste of time and you need to educate yourself. There are many other things to vote on including local elections and state propositions.

      PTxS

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wow I thought this post died two years ago but you seem to have picked it up so lets run with it.

        It is interesting that you have taken such an antagonistic and combative tone but I will try to "educate myself", and with no direction from you I can only extrapolate your meaning.  I take it that you believe the local elections carry more weight than the national ones.  The national election got us Obamacare and based on what survey you read it is not popular among many.  Guess who is going to pick up part of the tab when lower income individuals are converted to medicare?  The local jurisdictions thats who.

        I do vote in all elections and the heading was meant to provoke some sense of despair over the current events then.  But they still are real and worth discussing.  I don't know to what extent you attribute the current state of affairs but nothing has changed much and it had very little to do with the National Race in 2009.  So how do you suppose the local election changed anything?

  2. rhamson profile image77
    rhamsonposted 7 years ago

    I guess it is not worth talking about is my take from the response.

  3. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
    Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago

    Voting isn't a waste of time, even if the only vote to be made is to vote the incumbent out of office.  Campaign finance reforms and Congressional term limits would be a good start as well as a media system that wasn't so biased for one side or the other.  It's difficult for the average Joe to figure out what the candidates are really about without all the spin. 

    Making an intelligent vote these days requires more research than writing a thesis.  Most people are sadly too lazy to do that, so these turkeys keep getting voted in.

    I'm going to try to vote outside of the two parties whenever I can because very few of those career politicians speak for the rest of us.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      But if you are one voice how can you effect change with the reforms you cite? 

      I too vote the encumbent out just about everytime.

      How long do you think this will take being the American voter has been asleep for many years? 

      There has to be a more concerted effort than a bunch of individuals campaigning their own agenda.

      1. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
        Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed.  I wish I knew what the magic bullet answer was to get the American public to realize that it doesn't really matter whether they vote Democrat or Republican in most any national election.  We see a lot of frustration lately.  Those Independents who hated Bush's politics voted for Obama, and now seem to be getting frustrated at his lack of leadership.  The volatility we see out there now from both the left and the right needs to be channeled into the change we seek.  A true Independent leader with big money could step into the breach if Obama turns out to be as ineffective as he is looking right now.

        The key words there being big money.  Unfortunately, those with money are under the umbrella of the other two parties in power, so I believe we start with campaign finance reform.  There is something wrong with the Republic when those with the most representation are big corporations or other entities with big bucks.  Take the money out of it and allow the American people to see a real alternative, and the groundswell of support would knock our socks off, I'm betting.

        I write letters as often as I can to my Representatives and Senators, both locally and nationally.  The squeaky wheel philosophy and all...

        Eventually there has to be a critical mass, and we'll see the political revolution that our country needs.  It has nothing to do with parties, IMO.  They're just good at keeping us down by keeping us divided.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I totally agree with what you say.  As an independent myself it was not a question of which party I was sick of but which party had the best of the worst.  The independents are slowly becommin the majority a out of frustration with the business as usual in DC.

          I am just looking for a way to get the slime out and get consciences administration of our representatives.  Unfortunately there is a mob mentality in DC and when you have mob rule it is very difficult to remove it.

          Maybe the critical mass is the independents and they need to be organized to be heard more coherently.

          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            If they become organized they will not remain 'independents.'

      2. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Is that a rational or responsible way to vote? I don't think so.

        1. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
          Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I know you weren't responding to me directly, but irrational it's not.  If you don't agree with either choice, then what do you do?  Not vote?  It's clear that voting is essential, and it's a logical process of deduction for me:  If you're not voting for someone then vote against one of them.  If both of them are slimeballs, as is too often the case, then get rid of the incumbent.  It's a simple formula, and I still have a voice in the process.  I don't see a thing wrong with shaking up the power structure.  The only thing that is irresponsible is swallowing everything the media feeds us and acting upon that in the voting booth without first examining the agendas of all involved and making up our own minds.

          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I wasn't responding to you directly, but since you're here...


            Do you vote against the incumbent for the sake of voting against the incumbent, or because it just seems to happen that you very frequently don't agree with the incumbent?

            1. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
              Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I generally try to cast an educated vote, so no, I'm not willy nilly.  That being said, too often I do not agree with the incumbents in national elections, so they have to go.

              One upcoming Congressional race for 2010 around here should be very interesting because I voted for the incumbent last time and would have again except for the fact that they've made some stupid moves recently.  Problem is, unless more candidates show themselves, the primary challenger at this point would be MUCH worse.  This leaves me with a difficult choice of which dog pile I would rather soil my shoes with.  Not voting isn't an option, though...

              1. tksensei profile image60
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                So, would you say you are more influenced by a candidate's positions on issues or on what they've done in the recent past?

                1. Jeffrey Neal profile image87
                  Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Issues first.

                  1. tksensei profile image60
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Then, is it that encumbents seem to change their position frequently or that the encumbents tend to be those you didn't vote for the last time?

        2. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Ouch!  I guess you could consider that not responsible but I don't vote that way all the time.  If I smell a rat and if you read any of my posts in the past about how I feel about the slimeball politicians I probably don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

          I find change refreshing and deplore standing still as a waste of time.

          To ease your mind I do spend time investigating the candidates and how they relate to the issues.

          1. tksensei profile image60
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            My point is that change just for the sake of change is not necessarily the best or most reasonable choice given any particular circumstances.

  4. Len Cannon profile image87
    Len Cannonposted 7 years ago

    Well, YOU can certainly stop voting if you want.

  5. 0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    I refuse to believe my vote does not count. Sure, there has and always will be some corruption. But I will vote as long as I can. Too bad only a minority does so.

  6. Jmobia profile image77
    Jmobiaposted 7 years ago

    Voting is only a waste of time if all that is accomplished is we vote the same morons back into office.

    If the choices of who to vote for is a matter of picking the lesser of two evils then it's a wasted vote.

    What we need is some fresh, uncorrupted blood to run. We need new choices on the ballot.

    For crying out loud Pelosi has been in federal government for over 20 years. That's about 18 years too long in my opinion.

  7. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Alvin Toffler of Future Shock fame wrote in his book, The Third Wave:



    So no, it doesn't really matter who you vote for.

 
working