Very few people bother to vote anyway.

[G_j]

And if it didn't matter at all, the Republicans in my state and others wouldn't be pushing voter oppression and the Koch brothers wouldn't be spending millions to influence elections. I live in North Carolina where the Republican orcs (see Tolkien) are out to destroy every progressive accomplishment that has been made over many years. Repeat this across across the country (see ALEC).

Voting is generally (though SCOTUS and the Republicans have been making it harder) a very simple act. Voting should be the least of what we do. What really counts is what we do every day.

I always vote, and I will vote for the lesser of evils. I make those kind of choices everyday. I don't particularly consider my individual vote so sacred that I don't count the odds, and consider what will be best for the most people, the environment, etc.. The act of voting is so damn simple, it happens a few days a year. I don't quite understand why anyone would think withholding a vote makes any kind of significant statement. As I said, most people already don't vote. What kind of statement is that?

[djean111]

1. Oh, didn't you know? Some non-votes are so damned powerful that the GOP

wins the presidency! If, of course, it is a liberal non-vote.

[99Forever]

2. "Withhold"?

Is that what you think people mean when they say they won't be coerced into supporting a candidate they don't believe in? Are you aware that there are other options than either voting for the candidate of one of two major political parties or not voting at all?

[G_j]

4. Of course

Hey, I voted for Nader, as Bush already had my state locked solid. I actually had to write him in, so I was making a statement for sure. But the system is not set up for a third parity, and the two parties have tightened their hold even further. Nader wasn't even allowed in the debates, and was arrested when he tried to attend as an audience member.The deck is so powerfully stacked, the league of women voters withdrew from supporting the debates. Yes a third party makes a statement, I'll agree with that. But that's it. They will never let a third party win. I think Ross Perot cemented that. I guess it comes down to if that statement is worth the possible outcome of the greater evil being elected. I don't need to go over all the arguments. I've supported people that many here hate, like Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. I know the whole discussion well, and this is how I feel at this time in history. Things are worse than bad, it's an emergency. I'd rather make my statements the rest of the days the year. Movements like Occupy will continue.

On edit: I realize we are brushing against a territory of discussion that is not actually allowed here (advocating third party voting)
We can however discuss the mechanics of the system etc. I would love it if our system could be reformed so that other parties could have a chance.

[99Forever]

8. Hey, I get it

You buy the lie, I don't.


I will "make my statement" every day.

[G_j]

9. what lie would that be? nt

[99Forever]

12. That a two party system is our only option.

I thought that was what we talking about.

[G_j]

14. you haven't actually mentioned any

With all the ignorant, angry lunatics in this country, for me anyway, revolution is not an option. Movements like Occupy will evolve regardless of the two party system. Do you want to reform the system? I'm all for it, but can't imagine how that might be accomplished.

[99Forever]

15. It's starts by refusing to buy the lie.

Until you do that, they own you.

[G_j]

16. a few cryptic words

won't cut it. Anyone can say what you just said.

[99Forever]

17. No skin off my teeth.

Have a nice evening.

[G_j]

19. you too

I hope we can find some solutions

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. "As I said, most people already don't vote. What kind of statement is that?"

Sounds to me like a statement that 'most people' don't think voting actually changes much. That no matter which 'party' they choose, they'll still get chewed up and have their money siphoned off to the wealthy, so why should they bother.

It's up to the parties, and the candidates, to prove to people that they WILL make a difference if elected.

[G_j]

5. Then why are the Koch brothers trying to buy elections for Republicans?

I invite you to NC to see the Republican/Tea Party wrecking ball and it's destruction.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. What I said is a guess at a statement from the viewpoint of nonvoters.

It's not a statement from the viewpoint of 1%ers.

[G_j]

7. you're right that people don't think it matters

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

But it does. You can see whats happening on the ground in so many states, or look at decisions the RW Supreme Court has made. Unfortunately, it gets to be a real drag trying to motivate someone by making them aware of how horrible the alternative is. Modern Democrats don't offer much to get enthusiastic about. Enthusiasm is a valuable thing! But I also think that Americans can be just plain apathetic and lazy, and the Media helps nourish that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. But does it matter to them?

If they're white, is it going to matter much to them if something nasty happens to minorities? If they're straight, how many of them really care about gay rights? And on, and on and on. Sure, some folks are more enlightened than others, but I think many (most?) of those folks are already voting. If you want to reach the currently apathetic, you have to address issues that hit them directly. You have to look for universal issues, not wedge ones to reach the nonvoters. And that's where 'kitchen table politics' is born, and where 'voting your wallet' occurs. If you're not a 1%er or a zen master, you probably worry about economic issues. THOSE are your 'universal' issues that reach even the voters who don't give a crap about social issues that affect other people. You have to answer their questions, address their worries.

'How can I afford to go to college?' 'How can I keep a roof over my head?' 'How can I get someone to hire me?' 'Even if I get a job, will it pay me enough to live on?' 'Can I afford to have children?' 'How can I even survive?'

If you're not answering THOSE questions, and getting people to actually believe you'll do something to make it easier for them to solve those problems, you're not going to pick up apathetic voters.

[G_j]

11. exactly

that is why I am convinced Warren would win in a landslide, and possibly even Sanders. That's where the enthusiasm comes in. Student loans, minimum wage, SS, etc. effect people directly every day.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. And those folks aren't going to simply ignore social issues either.

It's a false dilemma to say you can have a candidate who is 'good on' economic issues OR one who is good on social issues. You can and SHOULD have candidates who are good on both. At least in parties on the left of the political spectrum.

[JI7]

18. politics is boring to most people and so is voting

[MisterP]

20. while I made this point, the way this is posed is like saying,

"There's so much unemployment. How will a strike accomplish anything?"