Who cares who runs things?

I have voted in every election I have been able, and I take my kids with me to vote and try to teach them that it's important to take part in the system. Maybe I'm an idealistic idiot, but I truly, deeply believe in the idea of what America is and I don't want that to disappear, even though it largely has. I am, and always have been, completely in love with how this country was founded and the ideals that shaped it. I'm a patriotic nut and I would love to see this country as close as possible to how it should be. I vote because of the sacrifices and blood of so many people that have come before me. It's not an intellectual thing for me at all, it's a very emotional thing. People run away from other countries to come here and there's an obvious reason for that. Capitalism, freedom, and Democracy have been the single greatest thing to come to humanity ever, and it pisses me off that so many people vote blindly or out of fear instead of informing themselves. Really informing themselves. That said, I do not for a minute think my vote means anything when I pull the curtain closed on that booth, but maybe if more people took it as seriously as I do that would change.

 

I vote and generally speaking my vote is negated by my wifes vote.

I don't believe things would change for better or worse if I voted or not but for some reason it is ingrained in my mind that it is my civic duty to vote so I do.

 

One of my best friends from Pakistan put it best- "America is just as corrupt as Pakistan, they just do a better job at hiding it".


As it's been stated, voting is more of a symbolic gesture these days.

As long as special interests are prevalent and the two-party system stays intact, we will continue down the path of big government. Republicans and Democrats only care about growing Uncle Sam, the stats speak for themselves.

It's sad to say, but within 50 years, I see the United States evolving into some Socialist/Dictatorship hybrid.

So voting really just pulls the wool over our eyes. If you want to really make a difference, join a grass roots organization to support a third party.

Viva la Revolucion!

 

I vote third party and to legalize marijuana (even though I don't smoke it). Those are my principles and I'm sticking to them.

 

I vote though like many others I only think my vote matters in local government. On a national level in my opinion policies are dictated by special interest groups and the elite, not by your average voter.

 

In case anyone actually gives a shit PM me for some good articles on Public Choice and in turn Voting Theory which is a pretty interesting area of economics. Another way of looking at why votes don't matter is due to the homogeniety of social groups. Simply put the odds are you will be voting the exact same as your neighbours.

 

If someone in power is ALWAYS causing problems for someone else, it doesn't matter if I voted or not, someone is going to get fucked regardless. Therefore, I can still complain.

I have never voted (I am 29). The reason for this is because I have not lived in one place long enough to establish enough of a connection that I feel comfortable voting on the local issues (should the local school bond pass in my college's town? Fuck if I know). Personally, I feel the local vote is the far more important vote. So until I feel comfortable voting in that, I will abstain.

 

South Park analogized it best with the Kerry vs. Bush election and the students had to vote either for a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich. If those are the options, what's the point?

This point has already been touched upon, but with an electoral college your vote really doesn't mean shit. I went Ron Paul only because that's the way to show general dissatisfaction with the two party system.

This is the most I've ever engaged in a political conversation, I usually hear any politician's name and go straight for Patron on the rocks.

 

Rather than everyone throwing essentially the same stone into the abyss here, why don't we discuss the above.

I'm assuming most of you, and in turn most intelligent people, are ok with the above statement. That is, the vote simply does not matter. Why we continue to do so is up for interpretation.

In my mind, it's a mash up of various "Vote or Die" campaigns and the illusion of decision. Ie. we can vote democrat or republican, and maybe get certain things like the right to abortions or gay marriage, but politically speaking, those are non-issues. The bible banging right and the liberal left each create their own political participation by fighting each other, and the political machine is able to sit outside the scrap and do what they have always and will always do. Run this country as they want to.

But what I really want to hear from you guys is: Why aren't we doing anything about this meaninglessness of voting? Have we always been like this, or was there ever a time when casting a vote meant contributing to the way this country is being run? How far does the delusion run? Are politicians under the same hallucination that we all are (that the people actually want them in, that they are actually making their own decisions). If so, who is controlling that?

 

Hi, Australia here. We have compulsory voting. It doesn't make a difference in what is essentially a two party system.

 

You can't be serious. Think what would happen if we forced every single coonass/ghetto bastard/high school dropout/drug abusing crazy to vote.

Your voting results for the state of North Carolina:
President and Vice President: Dale Earnhardt Jr.
Governor: Dale Earnhardt Jr.
Mayor of Charlotte: Dale Earnhardt (out of respect)

Fuck compulsory voting. If Fox News's place at the top of the news ratings can tell us anything, it's that America is full of mouthbreathers. I'd rather the few smart people voted as opposed to the football helmet-wearing majority.

 

The electors are chosen by the party; they are pretty unlikely to choose someone who might randomly change sides. From what I've been told, the worst that has happened in the past is someone has either abstained or switched the names on the ticket (e.g. if they vote for Biden for President and Obama for VP, instead of the correct way). Granted, I suppose the chances of that happening are still much greater than the chances of any one individual affecting the outcome of a national election...

Edit: Oh, or maybe you're talking about winning the Electoral College despite not winning the popular vote? There's semi-decent reasons for the Electoral College to be in place, but I've never really felt that strongly about it so I won't get into it.

Not trying to pick on you, but a few points:

Yes, a two party system is not ideal, but I think saying "they're the same except for x, y, and z" is pretty disingenuous. When the politician stands by their principles and for what they believe, like say, Jim Bunning did, people get all pissy at them for being obstinate and giving the bird to "bipartisanship." When politicians agree on something and work together to achieve it (whether that end is truly and objectively beneficial for the country or not), well then they're all the same and there's no point in voting. You can't have it both ways.

As for wealthy candidates, at least in terms of the presidents the wealthy candidates usually do best (boring scholarly article, 90% chance that link doesn't work anyway). Now this is certainly up for debate, such as to what constitutes a successful presidency, or how wealthy is "wealthy," but it's not completely crazy.

And yes, the great irony of voter turnout is that citizens rarely vote in the elections that will, you know, actually dramatically affect their daily lives (local and city elections), but will go to the polls for something that A)they are unlikely to determine the outcome of, and B) is unlikely to directly affect them.

I'll certainly concede that you can say your individual vote will not change the outcome of any election, and that because of that, you don't think voting is a good use of your time. That actually makes sense. But to say voting is completely meaningless is asinine. Argue all you want about how the only candidates we have to choose from are total shit, or whathaveyou, but at the end of the day, the (voting) public's preferences are being counted. What other way would you have us transmit the public's preferences to policy besides voting? Sure, you could change to a direct democracy rather than the republic we have, you could argue that has more meaning I suppose, but that still requires people to vote. What the hell is wrong with voting in and of itself?

Focus: I live in Ohio, a bellwether and battleground state, so on some psychological level I feel like my vote counts more than all you fuckers, so I do it. Also, I vote absentee into my home county, which for some issues only gets less than 1,000 total votes, so I vote there thinking I'll have slightly more of an effect on the outcome. That having been said, I'd vote anyway because of the old "civic duty" factor.

I have no feelings one way or the other about compulsory voting, and you can pretty easily say that you should be free to not vote, but really, how is it that much of an imposition? I mean this country can draft you and force you to give your life for it, but God forbid you are compelled to vote once in a while.

Fun fact: Who people vote for is by and large determined by their Party Identification. While that's not really surprising, what gets me is that you're more likely to change religions than you are to change your party ID. And not even just some Protestant denomination to another, I mean you're more likely to go from Christian to Buddhist, or Muslim to Jew (ok, maybe not that one).

 

I vote in every election, from the federal ones to the idiotic local ones. My own city's system is a phantasmagoria of Retard Olympics. Not a lot of people vote in my town because they don't give people the day off to vote.

Make elections a holiday. They ARE important, but if it's a person who just doesn't want to vote that's their decision.

 

Well, nice to see you're still a massive douchebag acting all e-tough. At least some things don't change.

In 2004, Bush won Ohio by about 120,000 votes. Winner of Ohio wins the election due to the Electoral College. So if 121,000 less Bush voters had decided voting was worthless and stayed home, John Kerry wins the election. If Kerry gets elected, Sam Alito and John Roberts do not get appointed to the supreme court and 2 liberals get appointed instead. Hopefully you can at least imagine the long term ramifications. Kerry wins 2004, Obama doesn't run in 2008 (tea partiers rejoice!). Given the option between McCain and Kerry, voter turnout goes to 0 in 2008.

I kind of get not voting if you live in NY, I guess, but if you live in a state where elections have come down to a few thousand votes? Get your ass off the couch.

 

This is akin to becoming vegan to protest the factory-farm system of meat production, instead of buying from farms that don't treat their animals like shit. Instead of benefiting the people who are most in line with what you want, you benefit no one. It's basically taking your ball and going home, instead of passing it to an ally/teammate. It's possibly the lamest and least effective form of protest there is, besides writing an illegible letter to elected officials.

My vote by itself is almost insignificant, over 132.6 million people turned out in 2008 to vote. 1/132,600,000 is certainly not a large amount. However, my vote combined with the votes of people who come to the same conclusions as I do adds up, bit by bit. Sure, it is just a drop in the bucket, but enough drops can cause that bucket to overflow. Do you people who don't vote also not bother to save for retirement?

As for those who bitch about a two-party system: yeah, generally people try to find as many allies as possible and consolidate for simplicity's sake. Parties are not set in stone, and people's opinions can change. The Democratic Party and GOP aren't as old as 1776, the South hasn't always voted Republican, and independent candidates have been elected.

 

Both current parties are focused on the same thing, growing the government. It's a self-sufficient entity, and when that happens, it looks to expand. Why continue to flow cash from the private to the public market? Simply from an economic standpoint, it's inefficient. Social services have their place, but they're limited in the constitution and for good reason.

Am I cynical to the point I think the goverment would rig an election preventing a third-party from winning? Hell yes. They've done worse in the past.

Because of this, I'm also a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but not the NRA.

 

I know you like to go on about these tangents of special interests this and governments in perpetual growth that. I came across this image a while ago and thought it would be of interest:



Showing that the government has, in fact, reduced tax rates over the years (the GDP across the bottom is rather irrelevant). I mean, I know that the government has in general gotten larger but tax rates have indeed gone down, even in the face of massive cold war defense spending. Why, FDR said that, on account of money needed for WWII, no American should have a take-home income greater than $25,000 (~320,000 in today's funds). Crazy, huh.

Perfectly valid reasons for this. Among them, the actions of the government doesn't actually have that big an impact on the day-to-day life of most people, even those who work for it. The government is slow and inefficient, so nothing will take effect particularly fast. And, the existence of a communist prime minister will not cause asphalt to render itself asunder, so the roads are pretty good for another 10-20 years.

Though I know how fucked up London's political candidates get, are you really saying that, in order to be taken more seriously, elections need to be turned into a day off? Unless everyone can vote from their cottage and backyard patios, I don't see it happening.

 

I voted in the last election. I used to think it was useless, as my state is the exact opposite of New York: It has always gone republican, at least since, like, the 1950s or some shit. As a person with liberal leanings, I never saw a point. On top of that, registering to vote makes me eligible for jury duty, and fuck that silly shit.

But, my wife, parents, and family got on my ass for not voting and I did in the 2008 election, and for the first time in 50+ years, a democrat won Indiana. Honestly, would it have made a difference, if I didn't vote? Yes*.

The reason I think my vote doesn't matter? Skipping the obvious Electoral college and 'so many people that my vote is near useless' arguments, the truth is that the government is going to do whatever it wants. The world isn't going to end. The county isn't ACTUALLY going to disappear or explode or turn into communist China overnight like the screaming crazies will have you believe. At the same time, if a republican wins, we're not all going to be mandate to go to a nice christian protestant church while using one hand to flip the switch to give the electric chair to abortionists and the other hand to wave our guns around and shoot all the illegals. No matter who wins, very little is going to drastically change. Taxes will be collected. Crime will continue. Gangs will continue. Drugs will continue. The streets will function, schools will still be awful, teachers will still be underpaid, and the right and left will continue to scream at each other how the world is going to end if the other side wins. No one is taking anyone's country away (unless you count the white man taking away the Native American's land, in which case yes, we took someone's country away). Me voting democrat, republican, independent, or flying spaghetti monster isn't going to change a god damned thing.

Plus, did I mention I really don't want any part of fucking jury duty?

*In this case, yes means 'fuck no'