I'm apparently not as nice and civic-minded as the typical person who writes about politics. I care more about who you vote for than whether you get out and vote
( Read more... )
If you don't vote, you can still complain. Complaining is a fundamental human, pre-human, and non-human right, recently guaranteed by the First Amendment. Your odds of getting listened to are fair-to-middling, and not dependent on whether you vote.
Technically true.
However, it is also said that complaints without solutions are empty. And it seems to me that casting a vote is a straightforward first step toward a solution, if the problem is a dislike for those governing (and their policies). There are lots of other solutions, but short of working outside the system or in different directions in the system (litigation, for example) to achieve changes, voting is an explicit signal of intent to create the government one wishes.
So I disagree, mostly. If you don't vote, you have a significantly less valid complaint about the government than those of us who do, unless you have done the work outside of voting that makes up for it.
*****
On a whole other topic, I urge you to read David Neiwert's reporting at Orcinus, if you don't
( ... )
It's technically true and emotionally true, and it's counter to something people keep saying. That struck me as a good enough reason to lj about it. Furthermore, I've never heard anyone say, "You didn't vote, so I won't listen to your complaints", let alone actually not listen
( ... )
I've never heard anyone say, "You didn't vote, so I won't listen to your complaints", let alone actually not listen.
I've heard it. I've never said it -- and never will -- but my response will usually begin with "So what have you done or are you doing about it?" In at least one case, the responder pointed out the massive amount of nonvoting work he does in the community, intended to bring about change, and I acknowledged that what he does is worth far more than his vote. But for many folks, not voting and not doing anything about their complaints is the norm; that combination strikes me as wanting their cake and eating it too. And the complains that follow seem hollow, by comparison.
What's hypocritical about what (many?) people say about voting?
Oddly enough, I'm pissed at Kerry because he isn't free market enough--he's clearly a protectionist. I'm hoping that if he gets in, he won't be able to get protectionism through, or at least no more than Bush has.
I'm one of the 'hyprocrites' who say voting is a duty.still_askingNovember 2 2004, 16:43:21 UTC
I've seen lots of elections where there were some match-ups wherein I could find no one to vote for (and in fact, I more often vote 'against') but I've never seen a (governmental*) election in which I could not cast an uncompromised ballot on ANY of the races or ballot initiatives.
- Karen
*there have been some volunteer groups that I've quit when I realized I thought ALL of the choices were irreparably tainted.
Great LJ entry! Since you told me you want that type of comment, I'll say that this is well organized and coherent, as well as having excellent individual points.
I like your statement that those who don't vote still have a right to complain. I'm voting for Kerry for practical reasons; but if my principles just wouldn't let me vote for him, and I was still against Bush, I would refrain from voting rather than split the vote. I hope anyone in that situation would do so, too. There are less close and less critical elections--including many non-Presidential elections being held today!--in which to develop third parties. Or, in states like NY, you can vote for Kerry, but under the imprimatur of a third party, as agrumer points out.
Really great revision of Neimoller's famous saying.
Thanks. I'm glad it works as an essay. I was a little concerned that the emotional tone didn't flow well, but it pretty much followed how I was feeling. People with Emotional Focus Deficit Disorder (a just-invented syndrome) deserve essays, too.
I don't think that voting for a third party candidate splits the vote in any injurious way if you weren't going to vote for the major candidate anyway. The point wasn't that people were voting for Nader, it's that people who otherwise would have voted for Gore voted for Nader instead.
In re revising Niemoller: One thing I realized during the run-up to the war in Iraq is that history is a lot harder when you're in the middle of it.
I Live Journal and I Votemoonpuppy61November 2 2004, 07:50:16 UTC
I have found out who and what is on my ballot. I've researched who they are and what they stand for. I have made one small voice in the hub-bub. My duty to my heritage as an American Citizen and to freedom.
Comments 12
Technically true.
However, it is also said that complaints without solutions are empty. And it seems to me that casting a vote is a straightforward first step toward a solution, if the problem is a dislike for those governing (and their policies). There are lots of other solutions, but short of working outside the system or in different directions in the system (litigation, for example) to achieve changes, voting is an explicit signal of intent to create the government one wishes.
So I disagree, mostly. If you don't vote, you have a significantly less valid complaint about the government than those of us who do, unless you have done the work outside of voting that makes up for it.
*****
On a whole other topic, I urge you to read David Neiwert's reporting at Orcinus, if you don't ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I've heard it. I've never said it -- and never will -- but my response will usually begin with "So what have you done or are you doing about it?" In at least one case, the responder pointed out the massive amount of nonvoting work he does in the community, intended to bring about change, and I acknowledged that what he does is worth far more than his vote. But for many folks, not voting and not doing anything about their complaints is the norm; that combination strikes me as wanting their cake and eating it too. And the complains that follow seem hollow, by comparison.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
Oddly enough, I'm pissed at Kerry because he isn't free market enough--he's clearly a protectionist. I'm hoping that if he gets in, he won't be able to get protectionism through, or at least no more than Bush has.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
- Karen
*there have been some volunteer groups that I've quit when I realized I thought ALL of the choices were irreparably tainted.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I like your statement that those who don't vote still have a right to complain. I'm voting for Kerry for practical reasons; but if my principles just wouldn't let me vote for him, and I was still against Bush, I would refrain from voting rather than split the vote. I hope anyone in that situation would do so, too. There are less close and less critical elections--including many non-Presidential elections being held today!--in which to develop third parties. Or, in states like NY, you can vote for Kerry, but under the imprimatur of a third party, as agrumer points out.
Really great revision of Neimoller's famous saying.
Reply
I don't think that voting for a third party candidate splits the vote in any injurious way if you weren't going to vote for the major candidate anyway. The point wasn't that people were voting for Nader, it's that people who otherwise would have voted for Gore voted for Nader instead.
In re revising Niemoller: One thing I realized during the run-up to the war in Iraq is that history is a lot harder when you're in the middle of it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment