Your thoughts on your vote...

[Redleg]

I didn't vote in Iraq. Does that mean I can't complain about Saddam Hussein?

What a reach - I wonder if you actually read his statement.

I chose the first answer, even though my wording would have been "Voting is a civic duty and my vote doesn't matter".

It only doesn't matter if what you voted for doesn't win.

To much negativity does great harm to one's inner self....

[UglyandHasty]

Voting is a civic duty. Dont complain if you dont vote ! So i vote and whine a lot !!!

[Devastatin Dave]

I didn't vote in Iraq. Does that mean I can't complain about Saddam Hussein?

Why would you complain about someone you support?

[Geezer57]

My father gave me one piece of political advice: "Politicians are like underwear - to keep them clean, you need to change them often!"

I grew up as a foreigner in Brazil, where voting was mandatory for all adults. Consequently, write-in candidates often won elections. One municipal election had the rhinoceros in the local zoo winning, another had a celebrity parrot (who only spoke profanity) garnering the most votes. Of course, the next-highest human candidate actually got the open position.

Too bad...

[Tachikaze]

What a reach - I wonder if you actually read his statement.

You seem to have trouble with implication. I'll say it this way:

If you disagree with both viable candidates, it doeasn't matter who you vote for, you are still voting for someone you will complain about. So, why vote?

I complain about Bush because he is a terrible president and a terrible person. I have as much right to complain about him as Hussein and vice-versa. I voted against Bush, but I could not vote against Hussein. I still have every right to complain about him. Since he gets enough complaints from others, it is not necessary for me to. It's about as meaningful as saying that water is wet.

In reality, in a presidential election, there are only two viable candidates. In my voting career, I haven't wanted either of the two major candidates in any election. My votes were worthless. At best, I could try to prevent the worst of the two from getting into office.

I chose not to do this when Nader ran, and, if I had been in Florida, I actually would have helped the candidate I most hated by voting for the one I wanted most. In California, Gore beat the Antichrist (Bush) anyway.

But, as shown in the 2000 election, my vote does not decide the election; the electoral college chooses. More people voted for Gore, but it didn't matter.

This pretty much answers both questions.

[Redleg]

You seem to have trouble with implication. I'll say it this way:

Oh I understood it very well - and again the failure is yours in reading his statement. His statement was clear.

If you disagree with both viable candidates, it doeasn't matter who you vote for, you are still voting for someone you will complain about. So, why vote?

Does this really need to be explained to you?

In reality, in a presidential election, there are only two viable candidates. In my voting career, I haven't wanted either of the two major candidates in any election. My votes were worthless. At best, I could try to prevent the worst of the two from getting into office.

Then you can not claim your vote doesn't count..

I chose not to do this when Nader ran, and, if I had been in Florida, I actually would have helped the candidate I most hated by voting for the one I wanted most. In California, Gore beat the Antichrist (Bush) anyway.

Again you can not claim your vote does not count...

But, as shown in the 2000 election, my vote does not decide the election; the electoral college chooses. More people voted for Gore, but it didn't matter.

The electorial college insure each state has a equal representation. Is it a perfect system - nope, but that is what was established. Now if you wish for it to change, you have to voice your opinion to congress and request a constitutional change through the ammendment process. To accomplish this you attempt to vote for the Senator or Representive that will attempt to accomplish such a task.

Again one can not claim their vote does not count, the system was established so that the voter had more direct influence on the Senator and Representive from their area. If one fails to utilize them to voice their opinion - then the failure is on the individual - not on his vote.

Take a really close look at the voting for certain local and state measures - often the matter comes down to how you would vote. Take a look at the House of Representives and the Senate Races, some of them are fairly close, and others are landslides. However when one reviews the complete political process and the votes of the people. One can never conclude that one's vote does not count. Apathy and negativity is what defeats the political process..

This pretty much answers both questions.

Not at all...

[Kanamori]

Woah, wait up. That will happen at some point and level in any system of democracy you care to devise. Suppose you have nationwide PR. There are 100 MPs, and the national vote is 40% tory, 40% labour, 20% Lib Dem. so each gets that number of MPs. Then in the very first vote in Parliament, the labour and Lib dem MPs gang up and outvote the tories 60:40. Could the 40% of the country that voted tory complain their votes were a waste?

In that system the correct reperesentation goes to the legislature. In FPP, it doesn't. Your representative is determined by a simple majority and nothing else. I don't know exactly about ours, but FPP results in totally whacky proportions in your system, to be sure. My complaint did not have anything to do w/ the somewhat unwilling being governed, it had to do w/ representation at the district level and with representation at the national level. The right proportion isn't even sent to the legislature. So, someone who votes for a fringe party has absolutely no chance of having a representative in the legislature to at least officially voice an opinion, if not to have it acted on. More importantly, these people cannot even have a representative of theirs vote in different ways, rather being victims of the major parties' whips -- I dare say Britain is feeling this as Blair forces through stupid legislation easily, regardless of popular opinion. Often, the fringe parties hold more complex stances than the simple mindedness of the major ones, and could almost certainly play a major role in controversial legislation, which would be even better for a democracy. Votes are wasted.

[Kagemusha]

I didn't vote in Iraq. Does that mean I can't complain about Saddam Hussein?

I chose the first answer, even though my wording would have been "Voting is a civic duty and my vote doesn't matter".

Here is what i stated:

My opinion is that if you dont vote.You have no business criticize your government.That way you dont use your change to effect your countrys policy.If nothing else voting gives you right to criticize.

Tachikaze,Are you from Iraq?I think my precize words were "your government",right?

[Reenk Roink]

Mods, be ruthless in the suppression of those who delve into Iraq war or any other political irrelevance...

I want to see the rolling heads and blood of the guilty (metaphorically of course)...

[Idaho]

Not voting is a politcal act. When turnout for elections drops below 30% then mainstream parties get VERY jittery. This is becuase they get increasingly in danger of single issue parties and new parties coming along and trouncing them.

[Ironside]

Not voting is a politcal act. When turnout for elections drops below 30% then mainstream parties get VERY jittery. This is becuase they get increasingly in danger of single issue parties and new parties coming along and trouncing them.

The trubble is to see the difference between the political act of not voting and the apathy vote.
Personally I consider that's what blank votes are for.

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK:

Parties have manifestos that outline the things that they will try to do, as long as they are not too expensive, don't annoy anyone, or just end up making no sense.
These can change at any time, be completely ignored, and form no binding agreement with the voters.

I can like certain aspects of one party (UKIP for keeping out of the EU for example) whilst thinking that they are completely wrong on another (UKIP on immigrants for example). What then? I can only be all in or all out - nothing between the two.

Then there the 2 or 3 parties who let's face it are the only ones who form the House of Commons.

Lib dems are pro europe, so that's a non starter.
Labour are the current incumbents and are if nothing else passing masses of legislation and buggering up the NHS - and indirectly altered my career plans (I'm now training to be a GP).
Tories are radically altered, so we have no idea what they are going to do.

In the very old days parties stuck to their Views and were voted in and out of office based on them. Now, all three scrabble to please not their core voters who are going nowhere, but the undecided with whatever they want ot give their votes for the next 7 years. After the vote all can be forgotten of course.

Not voting and spoiled votes go into the same statistic. After a hard day's work I am not going to waste time in spoiling a vote when it has the same impact as enjoying my evening.

Saying that there is a civic duty to vote is alongside the Politicians have a civic duty to us the voters. I see no evidence in their side of the bargain. Perhaps if I do I will alter my stance.