Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA

[Stumblingdrunk]

Actually not voting represents a vote of no confidence

No, it really doesn't and people that keep telling themselves this do no one any favors, aside from those currently in power. You can argue what it represents all you want, but what it represents to you, and what it says to others are not the same thing. It says nothing! Nothing at all

[Vincento]

Actually not voting represents a vote of no confidence, it represents that you as a voting citizen of a democratic republic believe the government and its political system to be so inept, so corrupt, so beyond redemption and so out of touch with the values that represent the Constitution of your nation that you won't even dignify their charade with a vote.

Believing otherwise, republican or democrat, is the real tragedy. It is real apathy; to be so against one thing you will vote to oppose it regardless of whether it in itself represents democracy. It is a lack of caring about what your country was meant to represent, and the belief that some things "are just the way they are". I don't think that was the course of action men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington proposed, and I don't think they cast their votes for Governors "hoping" something would change.

While this sounds nice and pretty and all, the voting will still continue and whoever takes office will run shit their way.

I don't disagree with your points, the system is fucked. Older generations should not have such a substantial impact on the lives of our children. I know I'm not the only one who feels powerless to influence the way our country operates. The lack of experience problem is often cited for younger generations in government, but that's just a paradox if we don't get experience because we have no experience.

Until someone steps up and really decides they want change, and implements a system where a majority of high school students can shadow current government representatives to get experience and a firsthand understanding that might actually interest them in politics - or something similar - nothing will change.

Though all of this implies that even if a president/else wanted this kind of change, congress would allow it. loltenures

[Churchill]

So a voter turnout of 50,000 says nothing?

You're really participating in a democracy right now though - two identical parties working for the same goal, none of which benefits the people of the republic.

[hey]

the voting will still continue and whoever takes office will run shit their way.

Which will happen regardless of how many votes Daffy Duck gets.

[Stumblingdrunk]

So a voter turnout of 50,000 says nothing?

You're really participating in a democracy right now though - two identical parties working for the same goal, none of which benefits the people of the republic.

The voter turnout issue does say nothing, because it says so many things. There are numerous reasons for people not to vote and as such it is foolish to think that you can say anything definitively about the motivation of people that don't vote. People who are completely apathetic make up a nice sized chunk of the non voters. You are just lumped in with the rest who couldn't care to say something. If you don't like your democratic or republican candidates, vote for the green/libertarian/socialist/communist/whateverelseisonyourballot or write someone in. If you want to voice your discontent, vote someone else, don't be voiceless.

[Churchill]

So vote for nothing, instead of voting for...nothing. Makes perfect sense.

[Stumblingdrunk]

it actually does

[Stumblingdrunk]

and not voting is not voting for nothing, it is not voting. They are not the same thing

[Churchill]

I'm actually more interested in where your delusion is generated, what is your background and education level

[Stumblingdrunk]

So I understand that when you don't say anything, no one hears you, you argue that sitting on your couch on election day is fighting the power and somehow i'm the one who's delusional and uneducated?

[Yugl]

So vote for nothing, instead of voting for...nothing. Makes perfect sense.

Why not run as a candidate then.

Edit: Also, the original argument was about whether not-voting does anything, so you can't rebuttal by saying that voting does nothing. That doesn't help the anti-voting position at all.

[hey]

you argue that sitting on your couch on election day is fighting the power

I'm pretty sure the right answer is that neither not voting nor voting for someone who cannot possibly win does any good at all.

[Churchill]

I don't recall saying you were uneducated, assuming such is a rather defensive conclusion.

Sitting on your couch on election day, sure. I know you're trying to imply sitting on your couch always but that's neither here nor there. If (estimated number) 185M voices went unheard on election day, I certainly feel that would send a message in a supposedly democratic republic.

[Stumblingdrunk]

I'm pretty sure the right answer is that neither not voting nor voting for someone who cannot possibly win does any good at all.

Thats not what was said, he claimed that not voting made some kind of statement. It does not, it never has, and it never will.

[hey]

Thats not what was said, he claimed that not voting made some kind of statement. It does not, it never has, and it never will.

I know what he said, and i know what you said. I disagree with both of you.

[Bregor]

If (estimated number) 185M voices went unheard on election day, I certainly feel that would send a message in a supposedly democratic republic.

lol

[Churchill]

Why not run as a candidate then.

Edit: Also, the original argument was about whether not-voting does anything, so you can't rebuttal by saying that voting does nothing. That doesn't help the anti-voting position at all.

I can in this instance, his option is to vote for candidates who it would take a monumental idiot to defend, or candidates that share no chance of winning in the current political climate/voting climate of the United States but more to the point are often accompanied by their own craziness, and illegitimate schemes. The not winning part isn't as important as the latter, obviously, because if a candidate possessed no chance of winning but was a good candidate he certainly would not be a worthless vote. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, that's a vote for nothing; it's certainly not a vote for a candidate who will uphold the oath he will take come January.

As far as running, I don't know if it's trolling or not, I risk getting trolled out extensively for saying this but it has been suggested to me in the past. I don't think I'm a very good public speaker though, not in the nervous sense but I think faster than my mouth. I always had a tough time briefing and had to literally index card everything.

[Stumblingdrunk]

I don't recall saying you were uneducated, assuming such is a rather defensive conclusion.

Perhaps it was inferred rather than implied but when the question is preceded by the word delusional it doesn't seem like a giant leap.

[Stumblingdrunk]

running without winning can accomplish things too.

[Churchill]

Then why are people so against Ron Paul? I'll be the first to say he's got ideas that are not the greatest, but a nomination for him would do leaps and bounds insomuch as bringing attention to his type of candidates.

Rather, people would chastise him and revert to the party line than cast a vote for a symbol rather than a candidate.