"Refusing to vote is NOT rebellion:

[riqster]

It's surrender."

A nice line to use on anyone you encounter who is contemplating sitting it out this November.

Thankfully, not that many DUers will thus abdicate their civic responsibilities, but we all talk to a lot of non-DUers.

[samsingh]

1. it means giving up the only power we have

[riqster]

3. S'truth. And Red states are trying to take it away, bit by bit.

[LLD]

74. They first start trying to suppress votes as soon as a state turns purple.

Otherwise in red states they have no need to suppress votes.

[merrily]

93. They are trying to suppress blue votes. They're getting out the red vote.

[riqster]

95. Very true indeed. Which means we must bring out the blue vote.

[merrily]

97. I know it's true. I watched the IRS hearings on C-Span.

Not all of them, to be sure. But enough to get the gist.

[riqster]

100. Watching it happen in Ohio. Turning a purple state red.

2000 and 2004 were not anamolies. It's been a long, slow process.

[merrily]

101. In great part, 2000 and 2004 used the gay marriage issue on

ballots to get out the red vote. In that way, those elections were anomalies.

In 2008 and 2012, they used Obama's skin color. (Funny: I remember people questioning in 2007-08 whether Obama was "black enough," whatever the hell that means. I guess they have their answer now.

Bottom line: The right is always going to use something, even if they have to invent it.

[riqster]

105. What I meant was that it is a continuous process that happens during and between elections.

[merrily]

106. Yes, and without sufficient resistance.

[riqster]

107. Oh, hellz yeah. The Ohio Dem party is worse than useless.

[merrily]

109. I didn't mean Ohio specifically. It's a pattern.

[riqster]

113. Apologies. It's my home state, and where most of my AFK activism is concentrated.

Sorry for the monomania.

[merrily]

114. Not monomania and no apologies necessary. Au contraire.

It wasn't what I was saying is all I meant. But, even though I was making a different point, I am very glad to have the perspective of an Ohio native, especially on the topic of what goes on in Ohio.

[Scootaloo]

22. It's rather baffling that you think this is "the only power you have"

That sort of thinking leads me to understand why people might decide to not vote - if this is the "only power we have" and it doesn't get results when exercised, well why bother?

You have a tongue. You have hands. You have a body. Most importantly you have a brain. You have power far beyond making tic marks on a slip of paper every few years.

[riqster]

23. Those are indeed powerful tools. But the vote is far more potent.

A few hundred votes made it possible for Bush to use the Supremes to steal the nation.

Four votes turned Ohio from Purple to Red.

Every vote does matter, and those who do not vote aren't using their power as citizens.

[jeff47]

48. And how do those tools actually cause an effect in our system?

By voting, and convincing others to vote.

[merrily]

94. In politics, though, money talks.

If we would get together and hire our own lobbyist, that might work, but I doubt it. Too much organization and too many dollars already existing.

[riqster]

98. Money is used to get people to the polls.

After a politico is elected, some money is used to bribe them.

[merrily]

99. It's used for far more than that. And the money that is used to

get people to the polls comes from donors. No favors for donors and the money dries up--and maybe so does your reelection effort.

Money is used to buy up radio and TV stations, to establish think tanks, to give jobs to relatives of members of Congress and on and on and on.

As far as getting people to the polls, pleasing donors become a substitute for enacting policies that get people to the polls to keep you in office. And I do mean enacting. Not lip service or DC kabuki.

Another substitute: fostering unconditional party loyalty.

[H2O Man]

2. Recommended.

Citizens have the right to vote; with such rights come responsibilities. Vote.

[riqster]

4. +1

[leftstreet]

5. Emma Goldman 2016 n/t

[Lady Freedom Returns]

6. To stop me from going to the Voting Box..

Is to put me in a box!

[riqster]

18. And that is also the only way TO stop me from voting.

[MineralMan]

7. It's also not activism.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[riqster]

17. Indeed. It's "passivism".

[greatlaurel]

8. If voting doesn't matter, why is the GOP working so hard to stop people from voting?

Even with all the power the monied interests have, they are still afraid of the power ordinary people have at the ballot box, especially people of color.

GOTV 2014!

Love the line. Thanks for the OP. Recommended and bookmarked.

[riqster]

19. Just so. Republicans want to limit the exercise of the right to vote.

Why some non-Repubs want to suppress voting is pretty fucking bizarre.

[sheshe2]

9. GOTV 2014

[riqster]

20. ^^^THIS^^^

[DetlefK]

10. I was baffled when Russel Brand tried to declare that refusing to vote IS rebellion.

His reasoning was that no politician we get is really good enough. That's why we shouldn't vote until a politician comes along who is everything we've ever dreamed of.

[freshwest]

12. And refusing to vote until our dream comes true, ensures continuing nightmares...

And is the luxury of those who still stand to benefit from an unjust status quo.

When pressed hard, one does not 'hold one's nose' while voting for the lesser of two evils. One embraces the opportunity to eliminate some evils in a world that is unjust.

Not voting is a luxury most of us cannot afford.

[riqster]

16. Perfectly put:

"When pressed hard, one does not 'hold one's nose' while voting for the lesser of two evils. One embraces the opportunity to eliminate some evils in a world that is unjust. "

[sheshe2]

21. +1

[winter is coming]

26. Why would anyone would take political advice from a guy who looks wasted most of the time? n/t

[riqster]

47. Same could be said of Boehner...

[winter is coming]

87. Yes, and he's just as entertaining, albeit not intentionally. n/t

[yeoman6987]

28. First of all Russel Brand is not even an American

He was born and raised in England (I even looked to see if he was naturalized American and he has not) where they may have a completely different thought on voting. I hope nobody in America listens to Russel Brand on this subject because he really has no understanding or say in our political system.

[riqster]

32. Voting is indeed different over there.

[L0oniX]

49. "everything we've ever dreamed of" LMFAO ...like Obama?

[riqster]

56. I never thought he'd be even close.

He's a Chicago lawyer and a Dem. A half-decent President, but like all of us, he's human.

[blkmusclmachine]

11. ,

,

[Jenoch]

13. I had a roommate in college and later, a boss who both had never

voted in any election, ever. I told both of them that if they don't vote, they really can't complain about how our government is functioning. I don't recall them complaining specifically about politics. The sad thing is, they were both apolitical and I am glad they never voted.

[riqster]

24. Depending on the flavor of their apolitics, it is debatable.

We never know how someone will vote.

[Jenoch]

88. What is debatable?

[riqster]

91. Whether we should assume that it's better for apolitical people to not vote.

[Jenoch]

120. Ok, then WHY is it debatable?

I never knew the political leanings of the two people I mentioned. In fact, I thought I said they were 'apolitical'. I don't want completely uninformed people voting at all.

[riqster]

121. I read your post. I think we need to educate and engage.

Democrats believe in an expansive franchise. The more educated and involved voters, the better.

We can assume that some people are too (fill in the blank) to vote, and in some cases that may be true. But I have managed to get a fair few of such folks off the sidelines and into the voting booth, so that experience colors my thinking.

[Jenoch]

122. Oh don't be mistaken.

I attempted to engage them in a conversation about how it is important for them to vote and become engaged in the political process. These two did not want any part of it, so I am glad they did not go to the polls. How that has changed since I last saw either of them (more than 15 years, I don't know.)

[riqster]

123. Yep. Rule Twelve: "There are some people you just can't help."

[FSogol]

14. K & R. GOTV, DU

[riqster]

15. Article on apolitical Americans:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-political-bystander-108605.html

Turns out, most are more sympathetic to Dems. We can get votes by engaging them!

[riqster]

29. That's what primaries are for. To get the candidates we want.

[riqster]

37. Me too. General or primary.

[Peacetrain]

27. So many died, and were beaten to a pulp

in my lifetime to try and secure the right to vote.. even if it is picking the best of not the greatest choices in a persons mind.. A voter can at least start the process moving by getting more moderate canidates in office.. not just sitting on the sidelines because the perfect is not in place..

[riqster]

30. I hear ya.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. I offer ...

the majority of those complaining of the impotency of the vote have no direct relation/relationship with those that died and were beaten in order to gain the franchise ... It's pretty easy to surrender that which you has not paid for.

[riqster]

61. I daresay you're right.

I would point out that my family, being religious refugees, always vote, because we were dispossessed in our countries of origin.

We vote because of the history that shows us the alternative. Those who throw away their right to vote may well find they have thrown away all of their rights, one day.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. So very, very true. eom.

[Vattel]

31. I live in Maryland. Whether I vote will not make a difference.

[riqster]

35. Bull-fucking-shit. Sorry, but that is absolute rot.

None of us can predict the future. We must use the tools we have, lest others use them to our disadvantage.

[Vattel]

38. Sometimes we can predict the future, or so common sense would dictate.

[riqster]

39. Common sense is an oxymoron.

In 2010, sensible people in some blue districts assumed they could predict the future. They were, as we now know, utterly wrong.

[Peacetrain]

40. I understand Maryland.. My son lives there.. but you miss a large point

Even in areas where we may assume a win.. the sheer volume of the popular vote can impact \ representatives and senators from other much more conservative states. If they see the general population vote is much higher for canidates that share our values.. it does make an impact outside that state

[Vattel]

58. good point

[jeff47]

51. Your ballot has more than one race on it.

And there will be a race where your vote can make a significant difference.

[Vattel]

57. true, some of the more local races are not as predictable.

[arcane1]

78. Nonsense. You don't have a governor? A state legislature? Local school boards? City councils?

Your vote makes more of a difference than you realize, right there in your back yard!

[Vattel]

86. I was thinking more of presidential and congressional elections, but you are right.

[stevenleser]

118. And those local races affect your daily life more often than congress does. Plus, they redistrict

the state and can gerrymander it to the point where the will of the voters to select their congress is thwarted, as it was last time.

(They = State legislatures)

[arcane1]

119. Exactly!!

[liberal N proud]

33. Not voting is idiotic

When someone tells me they just will not vote or don't vote, I tell them, they have nothing to complain about when their situation is difficult at the hands of politicians.

[riqster]

36. They screw us over by their inaction.

[L0oniX]

41. Foist a bad candidate on us and we must vote for them. Let us know how that works out for ya.

If you think insulting voters is going to attract voters you may want to rethink that. Also the fear tactic I was reserving for repukes only but by all means try it on us.

[riqster]

43. Fail to vote and you will get the worse of two evils.

They can be pretty motherfuckin' evil, too. For proof, look at Ohio in the past two years.

[L0oniX]

45. That fear tactic is not going to work this time.

[riqster]

60. Fear, schmear. Let's talk facts.

Four votes turned Ohio from purple to Red. Women's rights, voting rights, worker's rights, the environment, all are under an unprecedented onslaught.

That ain't fear-mongering: it is fact.

Had four non-Repubs in one district stirred their stumps in 2012, we'd be less badly off.

Facts. You can pooh-pooh them, but you cannot change them.

You can vote, or surrender.

[L0oniX]

69. Hell can freeze over ...and I will not vote for Hillary.

[riqster]

70. So I'll mark you down as "surrender", then.

I, on the other hand, will continue working for change.

[L0oniX]

71. Surrender to the corporate candidate then. Enjoy.

[riqster]

72. You'd rather roll over and enable the worst evil to triumph?

Because that is what abdicating our civic duty means.

[L0oniX]

75. Your trying to force people to vote for someone they don't want in office.

Good luck. Some of us won't lock step. You can call it what you want and play the insult and you'll only push me/us farther away. Civic duty will not circumvent my conscience. Besides ya'll will get enough Rino votes with Hillary so you don't need my/our votes.

[riqster]

77. Force, schmorce. Quit acting like you're being bullied.

I don't call you a bully who is "forcing" me not to vote when you bash Hillary, so lay down that lame and overused rhetorical device.

[L0oniX]

81. Maybe you should try a different tact instead of forcing your "surrender" label crap on people.

I won't surrender to a corporate centrist DLC candidate.

[riqster]

92. I write my way. Other people write their way.

[riqster]

79. If you don't vote for the Dem, you help the Repubs win.

[Deny and Shred]

84. Does the candidate have to earn the vote at all?

You make it sound like they don't. As long as there is a D next to the name, you expect every left-leaning voter to vote for them no matter what their policies are. 50% of eligible voters don't vote, and they are overwhelmingly poor, thus ostensibly Dems. Why?

If that candidate is going to pass TPP/TISA, expand US global militarism, extend the Bush tax cuts, fail to prosecute massive systemic fraud that leads directly to historic inequality, vociferously prosecute whistleblowers and potheads, bend over backwards to extend the corporate agenda, encourage the expansion of the surveillance state, expand the lack of transparency, favor the 1% over We the People, among many other basic DLC tenets, then I don't think the candidate has earned it.

I will vote D for the SCOTUS reason alone and hope 'we don't get fooled again' on the rest. I still grow continually disillusioned that D means what I once thought it meant.

I'd rather vote for this platform

[link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022406728|

www.democraticunderground.com/10022406728|

[riqster]

90. I vote against Repubs.

I rarely vote FOR a Dem. Few of them excite me, fewer inspire me. But I always vote so as to make the Repubs lose.

Too many here are not just full of theory, of hifalutin notions of purity and liberal excellence; all of us are somewhat disposed. I certainly am. Some of us forget that the world around us is profoundly imperfect.

And in a fucked-up world, we have to live with its reality. Change to a party happens in the PRIMARIES, not the generals. One need only look at the Repubs to see that.

Withholding one's vote in the General does no good for anyone except the opposition.

[Deny and Shred]

102. It is a sad state of affairs

Voting 'lesser of two evils' ad infinitum. I do the same.

I was excited and inspired Obama topped HRC in the Primary in '08. Despite the slogan, the corporatization of the Democratic party has accelerated since. It has not changed in ways in which much of the electorate can believe.

The DLC actively attempts to crush the primary campaigns of true progressives. Bemoaning progressive 'theory' and 'liberal excellence' will inevitably yield more DINO primary-winning candidates that don't inspire. They will continue to push policies that adandon traditional party ideals and proclaim progress because of the D next to the name. Voter turnout the next time around will even less, and there is plenty of blame to go around for that, both at the top of the party and the bottom of society.

The SCOTUS appointments ARE worth it. Most of the rest is head-scratching.

[riqster]

104. Sad indeed. We need to be more engaged in the primary process.

That is where parties can be moved to the left or right.

[riqster]

137. Mine is a vote that has been cast for the benefit of the 99%.

Making the best of a bad situation is far better than cocking a snoot and doing nothing at all.

[treestar]

131. You are not afraid of Republicans in office?

Noted.

[jeff47]

55. Then vote for a better candidate in the primary.

I'm constantly astounded by the number of people on our side who have seen what the insane Republicans have done to take over their party, and insist on doing nothing instead.

The insane Republicans took over by voting for the candidate they liked the best in the primary, and the Republican in the general. The result was a ratcheting of the Republican party towards their beliefs.

On our side? "Oh, I don't like who's on the general ballot, so I'm not gonna vote". Result? Democratic politicians don't give a shit about you. You aren't voting, so instead of catering to you, they cater to former Republicans and the party drifts towards the right.

Wanna kill Third Way and similar morons? Vote in every damn primary for the best candidate. No good candidate? Run, or work on recruiting someone. Sitting on our assess and waiting for salvation will not fix this.

If your candidate loses, vote for the Democrat in the general. Then vote for the best candidate in the next primary. It will do exactly what it did for the Republicans: Turn our party away from the center.

[riqster]

63. Should be an OP.

[LadyHawkAZ]

83. [phone]

[TheKentuckian]

129. Now just add billionaire cash infusions and party insiders organizing to the left and you might

have a ticket if you can get the corporate media to lend a hand.

I think the dynamics are scarcely comparable, our big donors and party operatives don't want to move left but rather toward corporate dominance, the security state, military interventions, free trade agreements that tilt the board even further toward corporations, more wanton destruction of the environment, continuing the failed drug war, even less accountability for the rich and powerful, and assimilation of much of the right wing economic agenda.

I think this colors your asserted perception of who gets catered to, the party caters to the right of center not because they are reliable voters for the party (they aren't) or because the left abandons them (they don't) but because they want to and will run toward them or straight to the Republicans as soon as they get elected because that is what the donors and insiders want.

I've been doing as you suggest for a generation and matters grow worse and am growing inclined to believe that the Nader 2000 voters were right but too many like myself didn't back them up. A few votes, they can at least play the pursuit of the right (which never seems to be reflected in the votes, in 2010 the Turd Way ran off the independents) but many like 15-20% no fucking way to make those up without being TeaPubliKlan.

Instead of tilting at windmills (and that is all your "strategy" is, a damn time sink) let 20% of us explain to these bought off fuckers that the only way to power is through treating us as partners in this supposed coalition.

[jeff47]

136. You'd have a point if the Republicans only changed after Citizen's United.

The Republicans had already gone quite batshit insane by 1994.

There's also the problem that the big money thinks the Republicans have gone too far. Sure, the Kochs like the insanity, but Wall Street isn't happy with where the Republicans are going.

I think the dynamics are scarcely comparable, our big donors and party operatives don't want to move left but rather toward corporate dominance, the security state, military interventions, free trade agreements that tilt the board even further toward corporations, more wanton destruction of the environment, continuing the failed drug war, even less accountability for the rich and powerful, and assimilation of much of the right wing economic agenda.

And you are required to vote for their candidate because...........?

I've been doing as you suggest for a generation and matters grow worse

If you were representative of the average Democratic voter, that would be a problem. You aren't. Turnout in Democratic primaries is abysmal.

let 20% of us explain to these bought off fuckers that the only way to power is through treating us as partners in this supposed coalition.

Winning your vote is harder than winning an ex-Republican's vote in the general election. Thus your plan of being irrelevant in primaries and the difficult route in generals is not going to be terribly effective.

[TheKentuckian]

139. Why do you think I'm not voting in the primaries? I'm about rock solid a voter as you get.

What is in play is where those votes go, never was the question reporting to the polls. I'll wait in line to write in, if is what I have to do. It took a lot of sacrifice for somebody like me to have franchise which brings me back to nobody owns or is owed my vote but me.

Now...Citizens United was a huge blow but let us not whitewash history and pretend we didn't have a five alarm fire going already when it landed. The influence of money and corporate capture of government and regulatory systems and I would agree that they Republicans were well off the rails by the mid 90's which is why my tolerance for emulating their economics, security, education, health care, regulatory, transparency (or more lack thereof), clandestine, trade, military, and general corporate taint licking policies just doesn't mix well with me.

I take exception to your estimation that my vote is hard to get and a TeaPubliKlan's is comparatively easy because conditions on the ground do not support such an assessment, they have got mine (along with money and volunteer work) for years while your new "reachables" were voting for Reagan and BushCo.

There is nothing hard about earning my vote IF you aren't trying to do shit I've been fighting my whole life and are solving not adding to (granted with generally less vigor and consistently less malicious creativity) to huge problems we have as a nation and a world then I'm not just coming along for the ride.

Now, if the way it is going to be is Reagan/Bush minus the southern strategy and dial back on the Jimmy Swaggart stuff then expect a rather gruesome break up and yes, I am afraid my vote is going to be ever less obtainable.

You better keep in mind though, there are only so many of your former Republicans to get no matter if you become them save in name, some of them left because they think the fucking TeaPubliKlans are too liberal and for most of the rest the price is still round about your soul if you share my hopes and aspirations to any meaningful degree.

If my vote is too hard then I question your motives and aims right out of the box and question them so mightily that it sucks most of that lesser out of your two evils. What in fucks name are you up to that my vote is climbing Everest for you? Has to be fucking despicable, right?

[riqster]

141. As to write-in candidates;

In the current paradigm, they count as a net positive for Repubs.

Which is why I stopped using them, some time ago.

[TheKentuckian]

143. Nothing helps Repubs more than implementation of their failed policies

and promotion of their wicked world views.

[riqster]

144. Which happens far more often, the more of them there are in office.

[TheKentuckian]

145. Seems to happen with regularity regardless of who is in office though sometimes

what happens is they go to some new extreme of wickedness and stupidity and the Turd Way adopts the previous but now comparatively less bonkers position and makes it "Democratic".

[riqster]

146. I still say that Dems are better than Teapubbies.

And am waiting for someone to provide quantified, verifiable data that proves otherwise.

[TheKentuckian]

147. I don't especially disagree with better but there is a more dangerous factor to be deeply concerned

about and that is the scary piece where legitimizing, institutionalizing, and diffusing the only effective avenues of combating the bad even if some rough edges get sanded down in the process some of the time.

The Turd Way disarms effective opposition to destructive policies and co-opts us into circling the wagons against our own interests using an ever more absurd regressive party to frame job us into supporting ineffective or even terrible policies some of which we have opposed for many years.

Eventually, digging a big as hole and systematically removing all tools to get out of it on any projectable time frames does push worse.
Are we there yet? No.

Will we be able to fix it when we get there? Doubtful.

Will we even be able to envision anything else? Nearly as dubious.

I'm not seeing time being bought or any intent to deviate from an unacceptable path and I believe it is insane to allow the absurd to be an excuse to swallow the unacceptable. Damn well not the increasingly absurd and the increasingly unacceptable because that strongly indicates being played and herded to a single choke point, servitude until the last bit is squeezed.

Different and better only go so far when the same structural problems are at best allowed to fester and at worse relentlessly pursued like these damn free trade agreements, I don't even see better here. The TeaPubliKlans might do worse but at least they struggle mightily to sneak them past the plate.
Hell, the surveillance state situation may be actually be much worse since it seems like "the fix" just means to make the despicable shit "legal", which I find even more disgusting and insulting than the original crime.

Long term, I am doubtful we are talking really better. A lot of the "better" is just kicking a can that gets larger as we go forward in time with ever diminishing tools to actually deal with the problems the can contains which isn't nobility but cruel cowardice.

I also think that the old can isn't getting as far down the road as some might think and we are liable to get the shit all over ourselves anyway with our hands tied by our own foolish devices. We are on stupicidal just on education alone.

[LittleGirl]

42. I voted once or twice before 2008

and I always said it was because I thought all politicians were crooks and liars, just like Nixon was when I was heading toward the voting age. Once I leave the states, I won't bother voting anymore.

[riqster]

44. Look at the Supreme Court. Five justices from Repubs.

Four from Dems.

The difference is pretty stark.

[LittleGirl]

46. Yes that's true

but if I never live in the states again, it won't matter who is on the bench.

[jeff47]

53. Sure it will. Who was on the bench determined that we invaded Iraq.

Different justices in 2000, and W isn't installed. And Iraq and Afghanistan aren't devastated.

Just because you aren't in the country any more does not mean the country can not have an effect on you.

[riqster]

54. Possibly. America has done a lot of damage around the world, though.

And the SC has the ability to ameliorate or exacerbate that.

[lightcameron]

50. Richard said, "Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy."

[riqster]

65. At the ballot box, the impact is the same.

[Capt. Obvious]

52. I disagree

I encourage all Republicans to not vote.

[riqster]

68. I wouldn't mind so much if SANE Repubs voted.

Anymore, it seems like the Wingnuts are the only ones voting on that side.

[noiretextatique]

62. after voting for over 40 years, i've seen little positive change

in that time. sometimes i think voting the definition of insanity, but i will keep doing it anyway.

[riqster]

66. I've seen lots of negative change. Caused mostly by Repub victories.

[noiretextatique]

124. mostly...but not all

NAFTA, for example. And the steady decline in wages and wealth. The turd way also sucks.

[riqster]

125. True. But enabling the greater evil is anathema to me.

So I am voting Dem.

[noiretextatique]

126. agreed

but that definition of insanity thing remains.

[riqster]

127. We can change going forward by working harder in the primaries

That is how to move the party left.

[noiretextatique]

128. agreed again eom

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Neither is voting for the status quo or politics-as-usual.

I always vote.

Who I vote for is determined the policies and principles espoused by the available candidates. Fortunately, my ballot contains a write-in line.

[arcane1]

76. That's exactly how the non-voting dumb-asses think: rebellion.

They actually think they are teaching politicians a lesson by not voting, and that somehow the system will self-correct if enough people sit it out

[riqster]

112. Yep. They forget how badly it's worked in the past.

Rather like Blackadder and the Supreme Tactical Plan, innit?

[Vogon_Glory]

85. Not voting is giving Teapublicans tacit permission

Not voting is giving Teapublicans tacit permission to do whatever they want and drive county, state, and country over the cliff and into ruin.

After the last twenty years here in Texas, I've come to dislike non-voters as much or more than I dislike Republicans.

If non-voters got off their lazy backsides and voted their interests, the Texas Republican Party would be a minority party facing a long-overdue return trip to the political wilderness.

[riqster]

111. More annoying than Dentrassis, eh?

[Owl]

89. It's stupidity.

[riqster]

110. That, too.

[merrily]

96. I never understand the no voting strategy.

It is never going to happen that almost everyone will stay home, especially if the strategy is not much publicized outside message boards and explained to America satisfactorily. It's not realistic. Let it go.

[Squinch]

103. Kick! Great line. I am going to steal it.

[riqster]

108. As did I.

[Bluenorthwest]

115. People who don't vote do so out of apathy. It's not 'to make a statement' it is the opposite of that

So your 'nice line' is off the mark. The way to get nonvoters to vote is to make them want to vote and by making it easy for them to vote.
Preaching at them is a big, giant losing tactic.

[Rex]

116. Refusing to vote is stupid and counterproductive. nt.

nt.

[riqster]

117. Yep.

[MohRokTah]

130. I loved George Carlin as a comedian. He was a GENIUS at comedy.

He was an ignorant fuck when it came to voting and I have about as much respect for him as I do some other artists whose work I love, but whose views I abhor.

[Jamaal510]

132. With people refusing to vote,

not only are they making it easier for the RW to maintain the status quo and are shirking their civic responsibility to the country, but they also are making it to where those who died for the right to vote in the past did so for naught.

[riqster]

133. A good point.

[LWolf]

134. For all those

warriors who are working to GOTV, I have a novel idea.

Nominate and run someone who will inspire reluctant voters to show up. I think that's a better strategy than the frustration and scapegoating that inevitably results when they don't show up.

I always vote. No matter what. Even if my choices are so rank that I have to write someone in.

I'm a hell of a lot more likely to engage in campaigning and working to GOTV if I actually WANT to vote for the person on the ballot, myself.

[riqster]

138. "I always vote. No matter what. Even if my choices are so rank that I have to write someone in."

Same here. We need to do what you suggest. In the primaries. That is when we can influence candidate selection.

Which requires GOTV. Dems suck at off-year primary turnout.

The two are not independent.

[hughee99]

140. Perhaps those not mentally equipped to see this aren't up to the task of

making an informed decision on their own representation either.

[cali]

142. or it's simply not finding a candidate worthy of voting for.

I've voted for over 40 years and I'll be damned if I let anyone tell me I'm abdicating my civic responsibility in choosing to sit out an election with an unpalatable (to me fucking obviously) candidate.

period.