Zero: Re: ... (my opinion)
Excellent. Now on to level 3...
0.) "...So you don't like the candidates then vote for an independent..."
Well, that's easily answered with my before mentioned alternative 'a'. Both of my previously mentioned alternatives 'a' and 'b' to voting for republican or democrat cleary include voting. I believe that you may have concentrated your efforts on the wrong front here. Allow me to clarify: I do not have a problem with people that decide to vote. 'Just be prepared to fully support your candidate and accept responsibility for excercising your right to vote. If you can't do that, then you haven't made a responsible-clear-conscience-well-informed vote. That pretty much answers most of your arguement. That brings us to your three remaining points. The first one is:
1.) "...How does not voting prevent them from getting into office or solve that problem?...
It doesn't. But if you don't believe in either candidate and can't support them morally or politically, then would voting for "Stalin" or "Hitler" still right the concerns in your head? No, it doesn't. And unfortunately, you can't always win battles in one night. This means that whether you vote for "Stalin" or "Hitler" because you feel you have no other choice, you're still not voting for (and therefore changing) what you think is a better life for yourself, your family, friends, and future. Yes you could decide to vote indpendent or for any other party/person/thing not on the ballot, but is that also gonna keep them out of office? NO, IT DOESN'T. Sometimes you can't fix a broken system (or what you think is a broken system) by continuing to use the same system. You have to instigate change. There are a few ways of doing this. You could recreate the Bolshevik Revolution (not recommended). Or you could make a statement. Statements lead to ideas that help fuel future candidates and hopefulls into making new policy. My alternatives 'a', 'b', and 'c' are just SOME of the ways you can do that. There are of course more... you can write to congress and address your issues (good luck with that). You could even try to run for president ('not gonna happen). But again, you have to instigate change. And as I covered before, alternative 'c' DOES carry influence. Even if you think it's a passive action, you can't tell me that Mahatma Ghandi's passive resistance didn't lead to change in India (because it did). And to clarify and drive the point home, I will elaborate in the next point.
2.) "...I don’t believe that not voting is making your statement heard... ...Candidates will continue to focus their platforms on people or groups of people that are going to vote. Because it is a sure thing that they will vote, then waste time and energy on people who aren’t..."
I stated before that in some polls as much as 50% or more Americans have not voted. These are all potential votes for any candidate. Think about it... "I can't do anything about a vote that's already been cast... but I can influence the votes that haven't been cast yet." 50% is ALOT of votes... enough to win an election in some cases. Therefore, it is worth campaigning for and that is EXACTLY what candidates do. I may not agree with these candidates, but they're not stupid. They know that the 50+% non-voters are enough to win an election and they'd be stupid not to try and win them over... As I mentioned before, Mtv's Rock the Vote, public appearances on mainstream entertainment geared towards youth, and even debates at college universities and campuses are all proof of this. And (here comes the real shocker), it's a good thing. Why? Because our not-voting has caused the almighty political giant to fall to his knees and tailer his platform to better suit our wants and needs in order to gain our support. They know that '50 plus percent' of non-voters is more than the 'less than 50 percent' voters. It's simple math. So they WILL try for those non-voters knowing that a vote is not too late to save until it's been cast. And it gives us future candidates that we can better appreciate and, if we're lucky, finally vote for. He (the campaigning individual) can't win otherwise. If he didn't do this, then it would be up to who has more registered members (republicans or democrats) that determine who will win the election.
3.) "...Voting is making your view heard. V = BH (being heard)..."
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is necessarily true. Voting is contributing your support to someone elses view (ie. the guy running for office). Now, if your view and your candidate's views happen to be the same, then you've got it easy and you know who to vote for. But if your view is NOT the same, then you won't express your view by voting for someone elses.
In short:
- Voting is a choice that carry's your statement to the government either by voting for a campaigning individual, voting for and independent, or voting for someone not actively campaigning or even listed on the ballot.
- Not Voting is also a common statement shared by much of America that is starting to attract the attention of running candidates and the media. More people are disatisfied with the government and will not give their votes unless candidates change their stance and incorporate their wants and needs. Therefore, these same candidates are slowly changing and reaching out to these people. Non-voting individuals are in fact, invoking change whether they or anyone else believes it or not. You can't please everyone, but at least it will gives us a chance to finally vote for a candidate who is at least willing to try and meet us halfway. And so finally, this leads me to our conclusion:
"...if you do decide to not shoot at him, because you are unsure, that doesn't mean that he won't stop shooting at you..."
You're absolutely right. So what will I do? Vote for the guy shooting at me so he can kill me? I THINK NOT. No, I think I will shoot back and tell him to 'fuck off'. And I'll do that by either voting independent (alternative 'a'), voting for someone not on the ballot or actively running(alternative 'b'), or not vote at all (alternative 'c'). All three carry statements saying "I don't support you, so I will not vote for you. Voting for you or your bullshit counter-part are not the only choices I have. And it is my right to be heard some other way. "
I think I established my points clearly and have shown that not voting is a statement and a reasonable alternative if you can't make a responsible-clear-conscience-well-informed vote.
Good Luck,
Have Fun,
Remember That an AK Magazine Cannot Be Slapped In, It Has To Be Rocked In,
[RTI] ZeroFunction
(Cлава к Oтечеству!!!)
Excellent. Now on to level 3...
0.) "...So you don't like the candidates then vote for an independent..."
Well, that's easily answered with my before mentioned alternative 'a'. Both of my previously mentioned alternatives 'a' and 'b' to voting for republican or democrat cleary include voting. I believe that you may have concentrated your efforts on the wrong front here. Allow me to clarify: I do not have a problem with people that decide to vote. 'Just be prepared to fully support your candidate and accept responsibility for excercising your right to vote. If you can't do that, then you haven't made a responsible-clear-conscience-well-informed vote. That pretty much answers most of your arguement. That brings us to your three remaining points. The first one is:
1.) "...How does not voting prevent them from getting into office or solve that problem?...
It doesn't. But if you don't believe in either candidate and can't support them morally or politically, then would voting for "Stalin" or "Hitler" still right the concerns in your head? No, it doesn't. And unfortunately, you can't always win battles in one night. This means that whether you vote for "Stalin" or "Hitler" because you feel you have no other choice, you're still not voting for (and therefore changing) what you think is a better life for yourself, your family, friends, and future. Yes you could decide to vote indpendent or for any other party/person/thing not on the ballot, but is that also gonna keep them out of office? NO, IT DOESN'T. Sometimes you can't fix a broken system (or what you think is a broken system) by continuing to use the same system. You have to instigate change. There are a few ways of doing this. You could recreate the Bolshevik Revolution (not recommended). Or you could make a statement. Statements lead to ideas that help fuel future candidates and hopefulls into making new policy. My alternatives 'a', 'b', and 'c' are just SOME of the ways you can do that. There are of course more... you can write to congress and address your issues (good luck with that). You could even try to run for president ('not gonna happen). But again, you have to instigate change. And as I covered before, alternative 'c' DOES carry influence. Even if you think it's a passive action, you can't tell me that Mahatma Ghandi's passive resistance didn't lead to change in India (because it did). And to clarify and drive the point home, I will elaborate in the next point.
2.) "...I don’t believe that not voting is making your statement heard... ...Candidates will continue to focus their platforms on people or groups of people that are going to vote. Because it is a sure thing that they will vote, then waste time and energy on people who aren’t..."
I stated before that in some polls as much as 50% or more Americans have not voted. These are all potential votes for any candidate. Think about it... "I can't do anything about a vote that's already been cast... but I can influence the votes that haven't been cast yet." 50% is ALOT of votes... enough to win an election in some cases. Therefore, it is worth campaigning for and that is EXACTLY what candidates do. I may not agree with these candidates, but they're not stupid. They know that the 50+% non-voters are enough to win an election and they'd be stupid not to try and win them over... As I mentioned before, Mtv's Rock the Vote, public appearances on mainstream entertainment geared towards youth, and even debates at college universities and campuses are all proof of this. And (here comes the real shocker), it's a good thing. Why? Because our not-voting has caused the almighty political giant to fall to his knees and tailer his platform to better suit our wants and needs in order to gain our support. They know that '50 plus percent' of non-voters is more than the 'less than 50 percent' voters. It's simple math. So they WILL try for those non-voters knowing that a vote is not too late to save until it's been cast. And it gives us future candidates that we can better appreciate and, if we're lucky, finally vote for. He (the campaigning individual) can't win otherwise. If he didn't do this, then it would be up to who has more registered members (republicans or democrats) that determine who will win the election.
3.) "...Voting is making your view heard. V = BH (being heard)..."
I'm sorry, but I don't think this is necessarily true. Voting is contributing your support to someone elses view (ie. the guy running for office). Now, if your view and your candidate's views happen to be the same, then you've got it easy and you know who to vote for. But if your view is NOT the same, then you won't express your view by voting for someone elses.
In short:
- Voting is a choice that carry's your statement to the government either by voting for a campaigning individual, voting for and independent, or voting for someone not actively campaigning or even listed on the ballot.
- Not Voting is also a common statement shared by much of America that is starting to attract the attention of running candidates and the media. More people are disatisfied with the government and will not give their votes unless candidates change their stance and incorporate their wants and needs. Therefore, these same candidates are slowly changing and reaching out to these people. Non-voting individuals are in fact, invoking change whether they or anyone else believes it or not. You can't please everyone, but at least it will gives us a chance to finally vote for a candidate who is at least willing to try and meet us halfway. And so finally, this leads me to our conclusion:
"...if you do decide to not shoot at him, because you are unsure, that doesn't mean that he won't stop shooting at you..."
You're absolutely right. So what will I do? Vote for the guy shooting at me so he can kill me? I THINK NOT. No, I think I will shoot back and tell him to 'fuck off'. And I'll do that by either voting independent (alternative 'a'), voting for someone not on the ballot or actively running(alternative 'b'), or not vote at all (alternative 'c'). All three carry statements saying "I don't support you, so I will not vote for you. Voting for you or your bullshit counter-part are not the only choices I have. And it is my right to be heard some other way. "
I think I established my points clearly and have shown that not voting is a statement and a reasonable alternative if you can't make a responsible-clear-conscience-well-informed vote.
Good Luck,
Have Fun,
Remember That an AK Magazine Cannot Be Slapped In, It Has To Be Rocked In,
[RTI] ZeroFunction
(Cлава к Oтечеству!!!)
Comments:
Post a Comment
