not voting is a vote

Xythe,

You're right. It's a vote. But, you know what? The candidates DON'T CARE. That's my point. If you don't vote, it is no threat to them.

Some years back I was privvy to a strategy commonly employed by legislators. If you call or write on an issue that is important to you, they will have their staff check to see that you voted. If you vote in every election, your concern is given high priority. If you vote occasionally they'll consider it if enough others feel as you do. But if you never vote or are not registered, the comment is discarded. Why should they concern themselves with people who can't/won't vote them out of office.

Nobody's saying you need to vote for a scumbag. If you don't like what's out there, you have a number of options including running for office yourself.

I've gotten to see firsthand what that can do. Pre-2006, my opponent in the 2006 was a "tax and spend" Republican. He had first obtained office in 1988 as a Democrat, then switched to the GOP in 1994. Except for his first election, he had never run opposed until I challenged him in '06. In this past legislature, he was FAR more a fiscal conservative than he had been in previous legislatures.

So what I am saying is, BE dissatisfied. BE PO'd. But for crying out loud, make sure they KNOW it. If you don't vote, you're simply classified with Joe Crackhead who doesn't give a crap!

as i have said before if you don't vote you are voting for the winner.

If you don't vote, you are taking your voice out of the system.  If you take your voice out of the system, then why should anyone listen to what you have to say?

Voting is awesome. We can totally influence the course of our government.

NOT.

(Sorry, I am a child of the 80's)

We should focus less on not voting for those we don't like and more on convincing people to vote, even if it's a blank sheet, the least likely candidate or a third party. We first need to show politicians that it us we the people who run the show, not them. We need to show them that we can make changes when ever we chose so they should not feel comfortable making mistakes because they think they will not be punished for it.

I think the entire point of my article got missed. I never advocated not voting. I said I wondered what would happen if we all just didn't vote one year. I appealed to imagination. Ok, my bad.

But try again. What if all the TV shows tracking everything were all geared up for the big Superbow...I mean the election, and shot after shot was taken of polling booths with tumbleweeds blowing by and NO people. How would they decide the winner? And do you not think THAT would convey a message? I think it would, and as I said, I can dream, which should have indicated that it was....a dream.

But no...everyone jumps on the voting/not voting bandwagon. In the article I said as much as "your choices are bad" and Gideon, you offer "blank ballot" as a good option?

And yeah, I have ideas for changing it, but I'd be more ridiculed for those by people that still have faith in American democracy than for suggesting things needed a total rework in the first place.

And yeah, I have ideas for changing it, but I'd be more ridiculed for those by people that still have faith in American democracy than for suggesting things needed a total rework in the first place.

in for a penny, in for a pound.  I would be interested to see what your ideas are.  I think changes are needed, but have not thought long enough on it to really have a good option formed.  perhaps a strawdog type of arrangement might be good for some open debate.

I guarantee the politicians would vote for themselves. As a result, your "protest" would mean that less than 1% of the population could dictate the law for the other 99+%.

Oh, yeah, THAT'll change things!

"Blank Balloting" is not the best option, but it is FAR better than not voting.

How many times have you run for office, ock?

"Not voting" is not a vote at all, it's simply a choice that really doesn't matter.

Like was already said, we need to get more people to vote, and to get new and old voters educated on things that really matter.  When I say "things that really matter", I'm not talking about American Idol, and the other nonsense that people think is so important.

How many times have you run for office, ock?

Twice, and I won both times. Vice President of my 3rd grade class, and President of my fraternity pledge class (Which in my defense was a professional fraternity, Phi Mu Alpha, not a social one) I didn't change a thing, either. My attempt to add 30 minutes to recess for all grade schoolers was met with derision from the teaching staff.

I guarantee the politicians would vote for themselves. As a result, your "protest" would mean that less than 1% of the population could dictate the law for the other 99+%.

Well lookie lookie! My first reform. Candidates don't get a vote. How silly. Of course, their immediate family members would, so I DO see your point and am just attempting a bit of levity.

"Blank Balloting" is not the best option, but it is FAR better than not voting.

Ok Ok Ok...I'll send a write in. What's your real name?

in for a penny, in for a pound

Ok, Doc, I'll start with just one. We'll see how it goes. Ock's rule #1. Anyone that can't point at Washington D.C. on a map of the United States can not vote.

Actually, to flesh this out, there would be a test bank of 5000 questions any moron should be able to answer. At the polls you draw one randomly, and if you get it wrong, you forfeit your vote. Heck, I know I'd miss one once in a while, but if I did, I would say "Dude, how are you going to make a decision on who the President should be if you don't know where frickin Rhode Island is?" And I'd walk away just fine with that.

I was referring to public office, the area where you claim there are no good choices.

Of course, I guess military DQ's you, which is understandable.

Tell ya what. Send a $1000 check to my '08 campaign and we'll call it good

You'll never find Rhode Island if you're looking for an island...

I believe they tried to limit voting previously. We didn't let women or black people vote... If you install any qualifications for voting, people will scream discrimination, because everyone knows that (insert minority group) aren't smart enough to get their question right.

When I say "things that really matter", I'm not talking about American Idol, and the other nonsense that people think is so important.

Well see my last answer above. I'm glad you show a little disdain for American Idol, because I hate it too, and so we'd vote for the same guy. However, comma, you're showing your hand. What is "important" is subjective. And most of the people I know operate on subjective principles. For every one American Idol naysayer, 10 mouthbreathers are going to say "NO! No Sah! I'm voting for the good looking guy with nice hair that can play saxophone. He r0x0rz!!!111 Don't try to confuse me with facts on issues."

You'll never find Rhode Island if you're looking for an island...

Yes, I lived there for a couple years. Thanks. But that would be a great test bank question. "Is Rhode Island an Island?"

I believe they tried to limit voting previously. We didn't let women or black people vote... If you install any qualifications for voting, people will scream discrimination, because everyone knows that (insert minority group) aren't smart enough to get their question right.

See why now, Doc?

Hopefully you see this late edition to my response, J. I stepped out to put another nail in my coffin and thought of it then. In every state in the union that *I* am aware of, we must demonstrate a small amount of knowledge of the rules of the road and demonstrate a small ability to maneuver an automobile in order to earn the right to drive. Why? So we don't go out and kill people. Now the worst you can do...realistically...is about a 10 car pileup on a good day. Killing let's say 20 people - average 2 per car, and all die. Why in the world do we not require a minimum understanding of political structure and of our very own country in order to vote to put a person in the White House that has the potential to kill a hell of a lot more than that with an errant decision or two over the course of 4 years? Hmmm? Synthesis.

If you could vote for President as many times as you could vote on American Idol, our political process would be a lot different.

Perhaps we should start with everyone in the country - nobody on the ballot, just write in whoever you want, and the 10 with the most votes go on a ballot, where you can't write in anybody. Then 5, then 2...

Ryan Seacrest could host. "America voted... Hillary, you have been eliminated."

Simon Cowell: "A dog in a track suit could have debated better."

I think I've got the next big hit reality show: "American President"

i am pretty sure that if no one showed up to vote except their families. they would get the message.

Straw dogs are not final plans. They are goin gto get shot down and torn apart. But then they do present a starting point for discussion and debate. I see Jythier's point, and eliminating the stupids would be problematic (or ignorants whichever is more politically correct).

But then we could always have a "teach to the test" class along with it, so that no one would be excluded if they made an effort. There are other ideas, that may not pan out, may be made to, or may lead to other ideas. What we do know is that we have to start thinking outside the box.

What we do know is that we have to start thinking outside the box.

Well you might know it. I know it. But the larger collective we does not know it. Many don't know that they *should* know it. Some of them vote.

Behind every vote is a person, and the intelligence that person brings to bear on the issues that are involved in whatever "age" the vote takes place should matter. I don't even mind if that eliminates me. I'm not trying to be an intellectual snob here. But I don't want to see a great thinker walk up to the polls to vote and then be followed by someone that just isn't much of a thinker and nullifies the first guy's vote based on any number of things that don't matter.

So there's idea number 2. Once every two years, you take an essay test where you describe the various issues and your understanding of them including proposed solutions to fix them. You're afforded internet access and a week's worth of time to write it. Research and fact count. Citations are required. Reliability of your sources are also in the judgement. If you choose not to write, your vote counts 1 point and everyone gets to vote. if you DO choose to write (and here's the shortfall of this idea) a panel of judges determines your knowledge of the subject at hand and your vote gets more weight. The shortfall being, of course, who would judge?

You know, if nothing else, people might get more involved with understanding the state of things as opposed to just voting party lines or even worse, basing their vote on "impressions" aka marketting, slogans, and other mental detritus that shouldn't be involved. More education is good.

1 point for each issue identified, 1 point for showing understanding of each issue, 1 point for each proposed solution, and a single point for submitting an essay. Additional points also for knowing a candidate's stance on issues.

So, now we have a new system to vote with, can I start a business writing essays for people to get them more points? How about we just sell the votes?

Do you disagree with the premise that better informed people make better informed decisions, or are you just skeet shooting?

Doc didn't ask for bullet proof ideas. He asked for out of the box thinking.

So before you take your next shot, let's hear you think out of the box, J. I'd consider that a personal success.

I like the essay idea, I think it has some serious market potential.

Have a waiting room at the polls and show a video of a debate. You can go in there and learn about the candidates, and have it fresh in your mind as you go to vote. Or even internet access provided there, with bookmarks on each candidate's web page, voting record, etc.

I like the video idea better, even if it was a video made by each candidate instead of an actual debate. They would have to only address themselves, and not how awful the other guy is. Get your smear campaigns out of the way before the election.

Well considering he was voted in twice, apparently there were no good choices in those offices either.

"My attempt to add 30 minutes to recess for all grade schoolers was met with derision from the teaching staff."

Almost missed that one. You couldn't get them to compromise at 15?

i don't think the problem is uninformed people OK their part of the problem. but the big problem are the lazy people.

what i mean is how many people go to vote and punch out the all democrat or all republican button or what ever it is in your state.

Yup. I had a lady last year who told me she was sorry she didn't vote for me, but she "only" votes for Democrats. I told her I was sure my opponent was grateful for her support, which upset her (my opponent, of course, was a Republican). I reminded her that by not casting a vote for me she effectively voted for my opponent. She didn't like that much.