pool for hillary s withdrawal date....

[Guinevere]

I predict that November 2016 may be the first general election since 1992 (when I was first eligible to vote) in which I don't bother to vote.

I just came across the following meme, and immediately thought of the above post of yours.

Yep, the more people that stay home, the more relative power my individual vote has. Since I'm taking the time and effort to be educated and involved, I'm perfectly fine with that.

[Big RR]

Guin--I don't think that's necessarily the case; sometimes the failure of a large portion of the population to refuse to hold their collective noses and vote for one or the other candidate can speak very loudly and make the parties realize thy have to be more responsive to their constituents. Often voting for a third party candidate having no chance to win will do the same thing, but we don't always have that luxury. But if people always settle for the lesser of the two evils offered, that is all we will ever get.

[Guinevere]

I disagree BigRR. There are plenty of ways to protest what's happening in your government, but staying home and not voting at all is not one of them because the election is going to happen regardless. You can have a voice, or not.

Maybe if there was a requirement of a quorum of voters (as in local town meetings) it could mean something. But most likely, not.

[Big RR]

But what if your voice is "none of the above"? Voting for one of them would not communicate that. Not voting isn't the best way to say that, but I'm unsure what other way it can be said. Candidates on both sides of the aisle tend to take their base4 constituency for granted.

I did participate in national campaigns years ago (Brown in 1980 was last), but lately have not found a candidate I would campaign for (and many times would want to vote for). I understand we all have to make compromises, but sometimes I find I cannot accept wither platform (or trust the candidate to carry through on the platform they ran on). And that is a problem.

Years ago the libertarian party suggested adding a "none of the above" choice to every ballot and, if that choice won, a new election must be held with one of the candidates then on the ballot running". I don't think it could be done practically (within the bounds of the Constitution), but as I've gotten older, it is attractive.

[Econoline]

But of course, push comes to shove, I'll vote for the lesser evil.

Understood. The first election in which I voted was 1968. I was very depressed about the choice I had to make, but in the end I just had to vote against Nixon. (Oh, well... )

Just keep thinking about the Supreme Court, and the long-term damage that a Republican--any Republican--could do.

[Guinevere]

But what if your voice is "none of the above"? Voting for one of them would not communicate that. Not voting isn't the best way to say that, but I'm unsure what other way it can be said. Candidates on both sides of the aisle tend to take their base4 constituency for granted.

I did participate in national campaigns years ago (Brown in 1980 was last), but lately have not found a candidate I would campaign for (and many times would want to vote for). I understand we all have to make compromises, but sometimes I find I cannot accept wither platform (or trust the candidate to carry through on the platform they ran on). And that is a problem.

Years ago the libertarian party suggested adding a "none of the above" choice to every ballot and, if that choice won, a new election must be held with one of the candidates then on the ballot running". I don't think it could be done practically (within the bounds of the Constitution), but as I've gotten older, it is attractive.

Work for change. From either the inside or the outside. Not voting is throwing up your hands and saying nothing can be done. It's ceding the ground. It often (but not always) takes time to bring about change. That doesn't mean you shouldn't start -- in fact it means you should start sooner.

[rubato]

Not voting just communicates that you don't matter and they never have to care what you think. That is why Republicans are trying to keep so many people from voting.

If we actually had elected the lesser of two evils we would be much better off than we are now and the Republicans in the House and Senate would not be hidebound to a fools orthodoxy.



yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

Guin--I don't think that's necessarily the case; sometimes the failure of a large portion of the population to refuse to hold their collective noses and vote for one or the other candidate can speak very loudly and make the parties realize thy have to be more responsive to their constituents. Often voting for a third party candidate having no chance to win will do the same thing, but we don't always have that luxury. But if people always settle for the lesser of the two evils offered, that is all we will ever get.

In this regard, I think Nader's candidacy in 2000 was a wake-up call to the Democratic Party, which resulted in a reassessment of its mission and a policy platform much more well-differentiated from the GOP in 2004 and especially 2008. The apathy generated by the Gore campaign gave us the GW Bush presidency.

I disagree BigRR. There are plenty of ways to protest what's happening in your government, but staying home and not voting at all is not one of them because the election is going to happen regardless. You can have a voice, or not.

The sole reason I am registered as a Democrat is to vote in the primaries for the candidate most aligned with my view. That's where a vote counts the most because of both the party limitation and the lower turnout. In general elections as a rule I vote red/green. Some people say it's a "wasted" vote, but I say the only wasted vote is one not cast.

[Big RR]

I still think the fact that a significant portion of the voting age populating chooses not to vote indicates (or should indicate) to both parties that there is a large untapped number of people who could possibly be convinced to vote for their candidates if they addressed their concerns. Just as manufacturers and advertisers don't ignore the portion of the population which doesn't buy a particular product, but try to encourage them to buy it by addressing their concerns (PCs were a good example of that), I would think the parties would move the same way.

However, if you always hold your nose and choose one of the two major candidates, you will continue to be ignored.

Guin--re working for change I agree (and I do such work in a number of ways), but again we are not talking about change as much as national politics (and in this case I'm thinking specifically of presidential politics). It has been a long time since a candidate aroused my interest, let alone excited me, and I have been let down again and again by those who I thought might have been able to do some good/bring significant change. Face it, PACs and big money control, and they do the bidding of their masters, not the voters (and face it, Citizens United just made it worse). indeed, the voters are pretty much ignored and taken for granted in the lesser of two evils system. There are plenty of excuses why they can't do what they promised, but very little in the way of real change.

Sue--

In this regard, I think Nader's candidacy in 2000 was a wake-up call to the Democratic Party, which resulted in a reassessment of its mission and a policy platform much more well-differentiated from the GOP in 2004 and especially 2008. The apathy generated by the Gore campaign gave us the GW Bush presidency.

Oh sure, they hit a few of the talking point, but very few of the acting points. And they carry out the budding of their PAC donors. And so they push through tax cuts when we are funding more and more by debt, keep pointless military actions going, keep political prisoners and other civil rights violations, the list goes on and on. I honestly don't think the dems learned all that much or really changed.

By the way, what is red/green voting?

[Sue U]

By the way, what is red/green voting?

Socialist or Green Party.

[Sue U]

Oh sure, they hit a few of the talking point, but very few of the acting points.

Our system is designed to accomplish as little as possible without overwhelming popular support -- and even then, not so much. It is either a feature or a bug, depending on your perspective of government, and I am certainly not opposed to revamping our system to a more parliamentary model that lets a government govern. But as things stand now, talking about issues and goals is critical to building the popular support required to actually act.

[Big RR]

Sue--re red or green, I do understand your point; but do you think it speaks that much more loudly than just not coming to the polls. It may, but I'm not certain.

As for overwhelming popular support, was that really there for the welfare reform bill that Bill Clinton signed? Or the opening of Gitmo and Patriot Acts? Or the enhanced interrogation practices? I could go on and on. It appears the only thing needed is for the monied interests to get something through--the popular electorate de damned.

I think on a local level the public has a lot more input, but not on the national stage.

and FWIW, what good is talking about issues and goals you have neither the will, nor the political skills, to pursue?

[wesw]

you know, I think that maybe the green and perhaps even the red could come to some common ground with the 2nd amend. crowd.

take the environment. a large portion of the 2nd amend guys really love unspoiled land and they will support land and waterway reclaimation and restoration. a great majority of the hunters would support the same .

we can compromise in certain areas and reach our common goal of preservation and restoration.

the majority of one side could sacrifice the trophy hunting and over harvesting and roads thru public land

the other could guarantee public access and common sense use, without overbearing regulation.

it s a place to begin to compromise at least. baby steps.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Hillary's email servers were responsible for the Bengazi raid

At least as much as the "anti Muslim video" that they all touted as the reason.

But what if your voice is "none of the above"?

I always thought that "none of the above" should be on every ballot and if "none of the above" won, then those running in that race were barred from ever running for office again. And I would now add that they could not become lobbyists either.

[Long Run]

No matter how you feel about the desirability, or lack thereof, for the POTUS candidates, there are always a lot of other offices and ballot measures to consider. It is worth educating yourself (including identifying an appropriate protest vote if that is your POV) and voting.

[Big RR]

LR--you are correct, and even if one chooses not to vote in one contest (such as the presidential race), it does make sense to vote in other state and local races or for public questions.

[oldr_n_wsr]

No matter how you feel about the desirability, or lack thereof, for the POTUS candidates, there are always a lot of other offices and ballot measures to consider. It is worth educating yourself (including identifying an appropriate protest vote if that is your POV) and voting.

I include local elections on my "none of the above" opinion also. And I do more research into local candidates than the POTUS election as being in NY, the electorals go to the dems no matter what.

I think the only time in my voting life (1976 to present) NY went repub was for Reagan (but I could be mistaken)

[Big RR]

oldr--while state and local elections should b looked at separately, I do agree with your none of the above point. In many cases I refrain in voting in such elections, especially in cases where only one candidate is running (whether I like that candidate or not, I am offended by the idea of a single candidate election); I'll often write-in a vote in those cases.

[oldr_n_wsr]

(whether I like that candidate or not, I am offended by the idea of a single candidate election); I'll often write-in a vote in those cases.

I hate single candidates and/or cross endorsements.
And I have written my own name in on more than one election. Still wondering why I didn;t win.

As far as none of the above, I like the option (maybe not to the extreme I suggested) but at least if there was the option, they (those running/winning) at least know people voted and were disgusted with the options (and maybe get them to be better). They don't get that message when we don't pull the lever for either (or more) candidates.

The only problem I see with "none of the above" is that it would win too many times.

[Big RR]

The only problem I see with "none of the above" is that it would win too many times

For a while, but then after the novelty wore off, people (and the candidates) would have to take it seriously (and I think they would). I think it's worth a try, though.