PLEASE VOTE

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

It is also always interesting to note who does not post in threads and to think about what those reasons could be. Since the days that I read but didn't post in ChiefDelphi, I have always been aware of that aspect of this marvelous fora adventure.

I have thought that many times. I was reminded of it by your post, and it had even greater meaning given this topic.


Then I read what Al S. wrote.


Yeah. What he said.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Then I read what Al S. wrote.

Yeah. What he said.

Wisdom shared is priceless, isn't it?

And timeless.

Jane

[kstl99]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Well Im not of age yet to vote (18 in 1 year and 2 months) but I have a serious question about voting. How/where do I get the real information about the proposed propositions and cadidates? All you hear on TV and on line is bottom line propaganda. Well you never really know a candidates' real motives but propositions must be easier to interprete. I personally did not like elections; there are too much "mud slinging". I do not know if it is really democracy at work in these elections, but more like "who can appeal to the public better through the media".

David, you hit upon one of my biggest frustrations. To me it has gotten worse in the last ten years. The misinformation or outright lies some of the politicians tell are quite easily disproven but people believe them anyway. I really think the press is a large part of the problem. The main media mostly reports what both sides say when what they should be doing is figuring out the truth.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts"

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Freedom is not a gift, democracy is not your right. These are things one must earn through good citizenship. I voted for Richard Nixon in my first voting experience. I made that choice thinking I was voting for the lesser of two evils. I know now that I was still voting for evil. I did not make that choice ever again.

Actually, freedom IS a gift that was "bought" for us at a high price, even the shedding of blood, by those who came before us. But, like any good gift, it must be maintained, even by blood if necessary, in order to pass it on to those who come after us.

The website I mentioned in my previous post has an article discussing whether one should "vote only on principle" or "vote for the greater good." It describes two different positions on this subject, and the reasoning behind each. I have decided, based on disappointments with "electable" candidates, that when I clearly prefer a less-popular candidate, I will send my vote that direction. I hope that if more people vote for what they consider the "best" candidate, not the "lesser of two evils" candidate, we might be able to send a message to the major parties that we are not pleased with wishy-washy, fence-straddling politicians.

Unfortunately, in the June 2010 primaries in California, the voters gutted the party system and the primaries. In future general elections, we will only be able to vote for the two most popular candidates. Typically, these are the ones that look best on TV and have the most money to spend on ads, and most likely belong to one of the two main parties.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by KarenH

I hope that if more people vote for what they consider the "best" candidate, not the "lesser of two evils" candidate, we might be able to send a message to the major parties that we are not pleased with wishy-washy, fence-straddling politicians.

An admirable notion, but I fear that any message to politicians that don't go through the main media or show up on their desk will fall upon deaf ears. I don't really call it the "lesser of two evils" approach. I just vote for the one that will mess up in the places that I care about least. Honestly, they are all going to mess something up. I know I'd mess something up if I ran a political office(though I hope it'd be less then the standard rate).

[JesseK]

On more localized issues, our votes are critical. Virginians were not only voting for Congressmen but also 3 admendments to the state's constitution. Anyone who didn't show up to vote for Congressional positions didn't get to vote for the ammendments. While some of the results were skewed one way, less than half of one percent of VA's eligible voting population made the difference on the final issue.

Virginia was nice enough to include pamphlets at the voting locations that contained the word-for-word pieces to be ammended and the proposed changes, so "I didn't do my research" really wasn't a valid excuse.

Food for thought.

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by JesseK

On more localized issues, our votes are critical. Virginians were not only voting for Congressmen but also 3 admendments to the state's constitution. Anyone who didn't show up to vote for Congressional positions didn't get to vote for the ammendments. While some of the results were skewed one way, less than half of one percent of VA's eligible voting population made the difference on the final issue.

You only had 3 amendments? You have it easy! Between voter initiatives, constitutional amendments, and stuff the Legislature puts on the ballot, I can't recall any time California voters had so few. Seems like we usually have a half dozen or more, a couple times per year, plus random local (county and city) measures.

[davidthefat]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/192687/hac...nd-Information

Interesting Documentary about voting... Now how true do you think this is?