Did you vote?

[mp510]

I voted, and I am shocked to see that almost 8% of the responding THR members didn't. We are a politically active bunch, and we complain enough. That number should be up closer to 98% (not everyone makes it).

Being out of town is no excuse given the trend to allow early voting. Getting an absentee ballot isn't difficult either.

 

[Headless]

No, I didn't vote, because i don't trust any of those that are in power or looking to get in power. Party lines are meaningless, we have republicans pushing democratic agendas and vice versa, outright lies, etc. etc.
As mentioned by several before - if i could morally justify voting for any one of the candidates, i would have. Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil; I won't have support for that on my conscience. Too many people vote just because they have been told they should and justify it by saying you can't complain about the government if you don't change it. The problem is, voting one way or the other, i'd be choosing someone who would do things i wouldn't like anyway. screwed if you do...screwed if you don't. Voting isn't the only way to change government

 

[Igloodude]

I voted, first time in my new New Hampshire district (moved from a town a dozen miles away earlier this year).

I was very disappointed to see zero non-RepDems on the ballot, and two legislative candidates had the backing of both the Reps and the Dems. And with 11 available seats, the Dems only fielded six candidates. I'm thinking about tossing my own hat into the ring in a couple years (in NH, state rep duties are far less taxing - and less lucrative - than in most other states).

 

[ksnecktieman]

The non voting majority scare me, 852 views on this thread, and only 440 votes...

Democracy and freedom do not go together. "Free" would mean we are not forced to vote. For democracy to have ANY meaning, we have to vote.

Maybe we need to modify the ballot to include "None Of The Above" and a non voter is assumed to be in that group? "None Of The Above" would have won every race in this country in this election. The incumbent just stays in office for life, unless someone can attract half of the legal voters to his side?

One single drop of water can not make a rainstorm, or a lake, but you can not make either a lake or a rainstorm without a single drop of water.

 

[K3]

Hi, new around here...

I did vote. I miss the paper ballots though - my hand gets tired turning that little wheel constantly.

 

[FeebMaster]

Nope, didn't vote.

Maybe we need to modify the ballot to include "None Of The Above" and a non voter is assumed to be in that group? "None Of The Above" would have won every race in this country in this election. The incumbent just stays in office for life, unless someone can attract half of the legal voters to his side?

That hardly seems fair. If none of the above won, shouldn't the office remain empty?

 

[ksnecktieman]

feebmaster? No, I think that a turnout of less than half would signify general approval of the status quo. If the incumbent is bad, or if someone really good comes along, every one should get off of their duff and vote. The reason people say they do not vote is because the differences in candidates is so minor as to make no difference. That, in my opinion is approval for the incumbent. (A major "home field" advantage always goes to the incumbent in an election, because his name is known.)

I admit to being of radical opinions. My voteing for judges is a sample of that. In Kansas we do not vote for judges, we vote against them. The ballot reads "Should judge John Doe be kept in office?" I vote no, for each and every one, because I think our judges free to many real criminals and jail too many minor offenders. A blanket disapproval as I see it.

Politicians are paid to represent us, and make the laws we want. Many of them are responsive to the masses, because they want to be re-elected. Many of them do not know what the masses want, because we do not tell them. With phone calls, or email, or snail mail, or most importantly with our votes.

Last paragraph removed, I got detoured onto the wrong road.

 

[rtw1955]

Yes I did

 

[Old Dog]

For the first election year since 2000, I voted in my home county (rather than from the Middle East via absentee ballot).

I confess that I still maintain a certain sense of bewilderment when I hear or read statements such as:

if i could morally justify voting for any one of the candidates, i would have. Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil; I won't have support for that on my conscience.

So that if the greater evil is elected, you will still maintain your smug sense of moral superiority?

Voting isn't the only way to change government

No, one can always start by writing a political manifesto, starting one's own political party, amassing large numbers of armed private troops, burn a few government buildings and offices while targeting a segment of the country's population as being responsible for all the problems of the country ... and see what happens from there ...

Or, even simpler, just sit at home spewing forth rhetorical tripe on internet forums and blogs thinking that is the way to change government ...

Me, I'll stay as politically active on the local level as possible and keep voting, though ...

 

[Ian]

I didn't vote, and I'm not the least big ashamed of it. I'll explain why in a new thread, so as not to hijack this one.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Great post, Old Dog.

Here in Wisconsin, our whole battle for concealed carry was on the line. We would either win 100% or lose 100%.

Well, we lost 100%. And I sure hope I don't hear any griping about that from people who didn't vote.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Early and often...

 

[Headless]

So that if the greater evil is elected, you will still maintain your smug sense of moral superiority?

I believe that the greater evil is impossible to identify during an election. Politicians outright lie, constantly. I'd feel worse if i voted for someone i THOUGHT was a good candidate only to discover i was incorrect and was partially responsible for them being in power. I don't feel morally superior to anyone except myself; sorry if it bothers you that i have my own opinion regarding the system. There's no smugness in my attitude; i'm not sure i'm right in my beliefs but i'm certainly not sure anyone else is either. Thus is life.

Voting isn't the only way to change government

No, one can always start by writing a political manifesto, starting one's own political party, amassing large numbers of armed private troops, burn a few government buildings and offices while targeting a segment of the country's population as being responsible for all the problems of the country ... and see what happens from there ...

Wow, way to put a ton of completely worthless crap into my mouth. Thanks for that. So very high road of you.

I was referring to contacting those who DO represent us and making our opinions on matters known. I personally do not see a huge difference between one politician and the next. Whichever one gets into office is equally likely to listen to what i have to say. As has been mentioned in various threads, politicians and parties do whatever is needed to get them re-elected... is it rare to see someone say one thing during elections and do another once elected? Absolutely not. Thus, i see no logic in assuming someone who says one thing during election really will follow through afterwards. This does not, however, stop me from contacting those who represent me and letting it be known if i have a strong opinion on an issue they are responsible for representing me in. Sure, it may not have any effect... but voting quite likely will not either, in most cases. I believe direct contact from citizens can make more of an impression on an elected officials stance than the polls do. Notice that i didn't say anywhere that i would never vote...only that i didn't vote this time. If i see two people running that i personally can make a sound decision about NOT wanting one of them in power no matter WHAT...i'll vote. Likewise, if an elected official appears to heed the requests of the people in his area and does good things while in office, i would vote for his re-election. This is simply not the case most of the time these days.

 

[Old Dog]

Um, no one put "a ton of completely worthless crap into your mouth."

However, in the future, if you're going to postulate that there are ways other than voting of changing our government, perhaps you could stop any speculation as to just how that may best be accomplished by including your proposed actions.

In the meantime, lacking the remainder of your thoughts, we are free to ponder just what you may have meant. Nothing at all "un-high road" about that.

 

[Headless]

right, just because someone doesn't elaborate totally on their stance, you should just make up and directly imply an agenda that doesn't exist for them. You're a bright one. Perhaps the next time someone says something you dislike without explaining every detail of their stance, you can imply they kill babies for fun or are an al qaeda spy. That ought to discredit their viewpoint right quick like. Or, you could ask them to elaborate. Hmm, thats an idea; civility. I notice that the post directly after mine from necktieman did actually postulate on other ways to make a difference and included some of those I mentioned, though he believes in the vote much stronger than i.

 

[orionengnr]

Early

...but not often.

From the outcome, I'd say...not often enough

 

[FeebMaster]

feebmaster? No, I think that a turnout of less than half would signify general approval of the status quo. If the incumbent is bad, or if someone really good comes along, every one should get off of their duff and vote. The reason people say they do not vote is because the differences in candidates is so minor as to make no difference. That, in my opinion is approval for the incumbent. (A major "home field" advantage always goes to the incumbent in an election, because his name is known.)

I admit to being of radical opinions. My voteing for judges is a sample of that. In Kansas we do not vote for judges, we vote against them. The ballot reads "Should judge John Doe be kept in office?" I vote no, for each and every one, because I think our judges free to many real criminals and jail too many minor offenders. A blanket disapproval as I see it.

Politicians are paid to represent us, and make the laws we want. Many of them are responsive to the masses, because they want to be re-elected. Many of them do not know what the masses want, because we do not tell them. With phone calls, or email, or snail mail, or most importantly with our votes.

Last paragraph removed, I got detoured onto the wrong road.

That's interesting. I've always thought of the vast majority of the minority of people who bother to vote as voting for the status quo. You know, the 95%+ who vote for people who promise them more and more of the same and then deliver on those promises.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

Same here OrionEngnr. I was near the front of the line when the polls opened, even got there before the folks begging votes for unknown school administrators.

But I only voted once, I had other things to do that day ...

Regards.

 

[No_Brakes23]

Yup, first time in 14 years. A combination of apathy, frequent moves, and a voting officer messing up my paperwork led to the lack of previous votes.

 

[rj713]

Yes I have voted in every election since I turned 18 in 1959.

 

[Reyn]

I voted on some positions but not all. Some i thought were both crap so i didnt vote for either.

 

[CrazyIrishman]

I've been voting since I was 18. A long,long, time ago I used to vote for one party then I started paying more attention . Now I vote for who has my interests at heart. Admittedly,they are few and far between but they are out there.

Before I vote, I look at a candidate's voting record and see what direction they're heading in (Pro-gun or Anti-gun). Then look at what they either sponsored or co-sponsored. If in doubt call 'em!

When the General Assembly is in session and a vote is coming up on an issue thats important to me I'll call my delegate's or senator's office and politely ask them to vote for or against depending what it is. I have found that most of them will talk to you with ONE exception and that is the rabidly anti-gun politicians!

My personal rule of thumb is that if a politician will vote against any of our freedoms (in particular the 2nd Amendment) the rest aren't far behind!


To put non-voting in perspective, one of our pro-gun delegates ran for county executive against the county sheriff. The sheriff was unknown on his views regarding 2A rights.

Before the absentee ballots were counted the difference at one point was 323 votes with a couple precincts left to be counted! After waiting for 2-3 days the final results were in and the Pro 2A delegate won by about 4K votes. It was the absentee ballots that helped him win. The point I'm trying to make is that YOUR VOTE does in fact count!

According to the news it was the smallest margin that a candidate for county executive ever won by!

I can respect someones decision not to vote but I'll never understand it.

 

[RealGun]

So that if the greater evil is elected, you will still maintain your smug sense of moral superiority?

I respect ones right to make choices; I just get the impression that standing separate from the results allows one to remain an unbridled critic of everything, feeling no need to take any responsibility for what actually happens. What is troublesome is that it doesn't really consider what would be best for gun owners. We'll see how that all changes in 2008, if both presidential candidates are unquestionably anti-gun. It could happen. Whether for President or Congress, the real work for gun rights needs to be done during the primaries.

 

[LadySmith]

Yes, I voted. In honor of those who made it possible and to throw my opinion via ballot into the ring. The CA recall showed me that voting is not a hopeless meaningless act although I voted before then as well. I didn't vote for Angelides (anti-gun) or Arnold (he banned the .50 cal and I can hold a grudge) in our governor's race.