Ask HN: Are you voting?
Today are the US Midterm Elections. Just curious... Are you voting today? If yes, where are you located? If not, why not?
54 comments
Statistically there's no point in me voting. I'm in a 90% dominated (R) area. So I won't be and I encourage others to do the same.
Democracy is real, but a state which is two party FPTP is only barely within the definition. It is set up so there is no legitimate third choice, and even if there was they would have no power to accomplish anything anyway.
Whatever we currently have exists to make us feel like we have just enough choice to keep us quiet and passive, "wait for the next election" they say, "you can change things" they lie, but statistically almost nobody in the country has the power to perform real change (less than 10% of states, and even in those states only a relatively small swing-district minority).
Go vote, but you've fallen into their trap. The trap of believing that US "democracy" isn't fundamentally broken/useless. Until the baby boomers and older literally die off the whole thing has no purpose at all (unless you happen to be in the 1% of voters that matter).
Democracy is real, but a state which is two party FPTP is only barely within the definition. It is set up so there is no legitimate third choice, and even if there was they would have no power to accomplish anything anyway.
Whatever we currently have exists to make us feel like we have just enough choice to keep us quiet and passive, "wait for the next election" they say, "you can change things" they lie, but statistically almost nobody in the country has the power to perform real change (less than 10% of states, and even in those states only a relatively small swing-district minority).
Go vote, but you've fallen into their trap. The trap of believing that US "democracy" isn't fundamentally broken/useless. Until the baby boomers and older literally die off the whole thing has no purpose at all (unless you happen to be in the 1% of voters that matter).
Why would participating in a broken democratic system automatically imply you believe it isn't broken? It's all you can do to have even the tiniest amount of influence. Sure, your vote might not be worth much now, but that influence accumulates. It's literally the only thing you can do that has any impact at all, but you don't want to? Refusing to participate is not going to change anything, it's not going to fix the system.
As to your first point: "I don't vote, because not enough people vote for what I want" is a self-defeating argument. It's a dangerous argument, too, because it just reinforces the status quo even more. If you're unhappy with the current numbers, the very least you can do is make your tiny part of a percentage change.
As to your first point: "I don't vote, because not enough people vote for what I want" is a self-defeating argument. It's a dangerous argument, too, because it just reinforces the status quo even more. If you're unhappy with the current numbers, the very least you can do is make your tiny part of a percentage change.
Just to correct a math error, you probably live in an area thats only 45% R, maybe 5% D, and 50% disenfranchised. Never forget at least half the population chooses not to vote. This election they're expecting to set an all time record in my home town of just under 60%.
I don't want to throw away my vote, so I'm voting "L" party on my ballot.
I do enjoy Rozeff's explanation of why he doesn't vote. "I do not wish to endorse a system that has produced and continues to produce what I think are pragmatically bad results"
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html
I don't want to throw away my vote, so I'm voting "L" party on my ballot.
I do enjoy Rozeff's explanation of why he doesn't vote. "I do not wish to endorse a system that has produced and continues to produce what I think are pragmatically bad results"
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff224.html
I'm in the same boat, I live in Texas and the Congressman for my district has been in office since before I was even born and the other candidate is Green party with no chance of winning.
As for the gubernatorial election, after hearing the insane amount of mudslinging on TV and radio from both candidates, I definitely wouldn't vote for either. I don't feel as though any candidates on the ballot, for any office, represent me or my beliefs.
As for the gubernatorial election, after hearing the insane amount of mudslinging on TV and radio from both candidates, I definitely wouldn't vote for either. I don't feel as though any candidates on the ballot, for any office, represent me or my beliefs.
There are 4 candidates running for each of the statewide positions, do none of them share your views? Have you seen this? http://www.lwvtexas.org/voters%20guide/2014gevg/gevg2014.pdf
That may be true, but do you have any local propositions or initiatives worth voting for? I feel that those are often overlooked in most elections.
This is a good point and largely the reason I vote. Many local initiatives have low enough turnout that you can actually make an impact. In a decent number of cases they also don't split directly along party lines, so your vote can matter regardless of the party split of your area. They also tend to be more pertinent to your community.
> Statistically there's no point in me voting. I'm in a 90% dominated (R) area.
Me too but I still voted. I protested by finding actual policy stances for the candidates participating in the races I voted. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of politicians that took the stance of 'not Obama' and stopped at that, like that is a viable policy for anything. Unfortunately, a lot of these people will be voted in due to the people who live in this area but I can't really complain unless I at least try to change things, therefore I vote.
Along with Governor, my (worthless) State Rep both national and local, there were important ballot measures felt compelled to vote on. I suppose I have the same attitude that my votes will more or less be null and void but maybe if enough like minded folks feel the same way, we (my area) might actually get a politician that is not a complete tool.
Me too but I still voted. I protested by finding actual policy stances for the candidates participating in the races I voted. I was genuinely surprised by the amount of politicians that took the stance of 'not Obama' and stopped at that, like that is a viable policy for anything. Unfortunately, a lot of these people will be voted in due to the people who live in this area but I can't really complain unless I at least try to change things, therefore I vote.
Along with Governor, my (worthless) State Rep both national and local, there were important ballot measures felt compelled to vote on. I suppose I have the same attitude that my votes will more or less be null and void but maybe if enough like minded folks feel the same way, we (my area) might actually get a politician that is not a complete tool.
> Until the baby boomers and older literally die off the whole thing has no purpose at all
This is just ridiculous. You know why the boomers dictate so much of what happens in the country? Because they actually go vote! They show up.
This is just ridiculous. You know why the boomers dictate so much of what happens in the country? Because they actually go vote! They show up.
"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating." - Boss Tweed quoted recently by Lawrence Lessig
While I believe the above statement is fundamentally true I"m still going to vote. For me personally, I think I'm doing that as a some sort of ritual to hold onto my belief in democracy even though I recognize that our current system is badly broken.
While I believe the above statement is fundamentally true I"m still going to vote. For me personally, I think I'm doing that as a some sort of ritual to hold onto my belief in democracy even though I recognize that our current system is badly broken.
I already voted early, the apathy and boasting about not voting going on here is the exact reason our politicians such fucking idiots.
People complain that the baby boomers control politics but that's because they are the only ones that show up to vote so their interests are met.
By not voting you are just giving a louder voice to those that do. Not voting as a form of protest does not exclude you from the laws that are passed by the people voted in by those that did.
I'm real fucking sick of the deafest and general negativity here on HN.
People complain that the baby boomers control politics but that's because they are the only ones that show up to vote so their interests are met.
By not voting you are just giving a louder voice to those that do. Not voting as a form of protest does not exclude you from the laws that are passed by the people voted in by those that did.
I'm real fucking sick of the deafest and general negativity here on HN.
> ...the apathy and boasting about not voting going on here is the exact reason our politicians such idiots.
Or, alternatively, that our politicians are such idiots is the exact reason that there's apathy and boasting about not voting.
> People complain that the baby boomers control politics but that's because they are the only ones that show up to vote so their interests are met.
Close to half of the voters in 2008 and 2012 were under the age of 45. It still resulted in one of the most useless Congresses in history, a pointless budget deadlock that damaged the US credit rating, increased powers of federal surveillance, continued insane drug policy ... the only issue that might be considered a win by the liberals of that age group is health care, and that came at a very steep political price and arrived at the door step a jumbled, broken mess.
Do you really believe that if the voter turnout by those under 45 had been 10% or 20% higher that it would have had much of an impact on the political process?
> By not voting you are just giving a louder voice to those that do.
That's not how it works. The loudest of voices do not belong to voters; they belong to blowhards career politicians and media personalities and people with enough money to buy politicians of any party.
> Not voting as a form of protest does not exclude you from the laws that are passed by the people voted in by those that did.
Maybe not, but it removes any claim to the wishes of the majority by those that write and enforce the laws.
And by the way, except for two elections, voter turnout in the U.S. has hovered between 70% and 80% since the 60s.
Or, alternatively, that our politicians are such idiots is the exact reason that there's apathy and boasting about not voting.
> People complain that the baby boomers control politics but that's because they are the only ones that show up to vote so their interests are met.
Close to half of the voters in 2008 and 2012 were under the age of 45. It still resulted in one of the most useless Congresses in history, a pointless budget deadlock that damaged the US credit rating, increased powers of federal surveillance, continued insane drug policy ... the only issue that might be considered a win by the liberals of that age group is health care, and that came at a very steep political price and arrived at the door step a jumbled, broken mess.
Do you really believe that if the voter turnout by those under 45 had been 10% or 20% higher that it would have had much of an impact on the political process?
> By not voting you are just giving a louder voice to those that do.
That's not how it works. The loudest of voices do not belong to voters; they belong to blowhards career politicians and media personalities and people with enough money to buy politicians of any party.
> Not voting as a form of protest does not exclude you from the laws that are passed by the people voted in by those that did.
Maybe not, but it removes any claim to the wishes of the majority by those that write and enforce the laws.
And by the way, except for two elections, voter turnout in the U.S. has hovered between 70% and 80% since the 60s.
> And by the way, except for two elections, voter turnout in the U.S. has hovered between 70% and 80% since the 60s.
Where are you getting this from? I was under the impression it's closer to 50%.
Where are you getting this from? I was under the impression it's closer to 50%.
Oh! I was wrong. I had gone off of a graph of voter turnout for several different countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turnout.png -- it came up while searching for demographic information on voters), but I'm colorblind, and didn't realize I was associating the wrong lines with the wrong country. Hate when that happens.
US voter turnout has been oscillating between 50% and 65% since about 1904 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...), although there is a (very) gradual declining trend.
Thanks for catching that error.
US voter turnout has been oscillating between 50% and 65% since about 1904 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_St...), although there is a (very) gradual declining trend.
Thanks for catching that error.
Would you say that in countries were voting is compulsory (like say Australia) the politicians are not idiots?
I don't think the problem is that too few people vote.
I don't think the problem is that too few people vote.
When apathy-caused laziness cannot manifest in sitting on the couch, it manifests in electoral ignorance.
If a voter in one country can't be bothered to vote, yet a voter is compelled to vote in another country, the laziness is just shuffled across to the act of voting.
Choosing a candidate that has opinions similar to your own is hard, doubly so when it's just as hard coming up with (and then justifying) those opinions.
If a voter in one country can't be bothered to vote, yet a voter is compelled to vote in another country, the laziness is just shuffled across to the act of voting.
Choosing a candidate that has opinions similar to your own is hard, doubly so when it's just as hard coming up with (and then justifying) those opinions.
"If voting changed anything, it would be illegal."
Yes, I'll be voting today, but primarily because there are some contentious local candidates and local issues. Like most voters I'm pretty disillusioned by the state of politics at the state and federal levels.
I'm starting to think of low voter turnouts as a quiet protest against a broken and corrupt political process, and seen that way, I really can't in good conscience encourage anyone else to vote.
Yes, I'll be voting today, but primarily because there are some contentious local candidates and local issues. Like most voters I'm pretty disillusioned by the state of politics at the state and federal levels.
I'm starting to think of low voter turnouts as a quiet protest against a broken and corrupt political process, and seen that way, I really can't in good conscience encourage anyone else to vote.
There is no way to determine whether someone is not voting out of protest or just simple laziness. That is not an effective way to protest. Voting for a smaller party that never wins would be more effective way of protest.
A "quiet protest" has never fixed anything.
A "quiet protest" has never fixed anything.
Yes, I'm voting. (Minnesota, 2nd district) I think voting is the bare minimum. The real important part is to get involved in primary races to help shape who the candidates will be. People are always bitching about the candidates, but don't participate in choosing them. Be politically active, not just on election day, but all year!
I don't vote as protest that our first past the post election system doesn't accurately represent the will of the people as well as other voting schemes.
I'm honestly curious if you think this is a valid form of protest as opposed to a form of apathy or laziness.
Personally I don't believe you can change the system from outside the system without replacing the system (i.e. having a revolution), and currently the number of people who are acting to replace the system from without is sufficiently small (and with a sufficiently large number of ignorable fringe elements) not to have any real effect.
Any protest that involves quietly sitting at home cannot have any real effect unless a large enough population does it to make the rest of the people realise that something is very wrong, rather than the usual hefty percentage of apathetic or otherwise uninvolved people.
On the other hand you've got people like Lawrence Lessig and the Mayday PAC (https://mayday.us/) who are actively trying to change the system from within, by electing candidates who support wide-ranging form. This is a way to change the system, but it requires engaging with the system on its (current) terms, not sitting it out because of, y'know, reasons.
Personally I don't believe you can change the system from outside the system without replacing the system (i.e. having a revolution), and currently the number of people who are acting to replace the system from without is sufficiently small (and with a sufficiently large number of ignorable fringe elements) not to have any real effect.
Any protest that involves quietly sitting at home cannot have any real effect unless a large enough population does it to make the rest of the people realise that something is very wrong, rather than the usual hefty percentage of apathetic or otherwise uninvolved people.
On the other hand you've got people like Lawrence Lessig and the Mayday PAC (https://mayday.us/) who are actively trying to change the system from within, by electing candidates who support wide-ranging form. This is a way to change the system, but it requires engaging with the system on its (current) terms, not sitting it out because of, y'know, reasons.
>without is sufficiently small (and with a sufficiently large number of ignorable fringe elements) not to have any real effect.
I agree actually.
The current system is broken and there is no way I can personally change it with my limited resources or with my limited single vote. Voting single issue on candidates who support change can result in supporting unseemly candidates not a comprise I'll make. And functionally is the same as not voting, since we are such a small minority.
Therefore what motivation do I have to vote? Other then civic virtue.
I agree actually.
The current system is broken and there is no way I can personally change it with my limited resources or with my limited single vote. Voting single issue on candidates who support change can result in supporting unseemly candidates not a comprise I'll make. And functionally is the same as not voting, since we are such a small minority.
Therefore what motivation do I have to vote? Other then civic virtue.
You're suggesting a super PAC to solve the problems with US politics? There's something unsettling and ironical about that.
You get the irony then. If Mayday succeeds, it'll render itself obsolete if not illegal. This is entirely deliberate on the part of the people involved.
However, and more to the point, Mayday is an example of trying to change the system from within rather than from without. The system is currently too powerful to try changing without engaging with it on its own terms, so it can only be changed from within.
However, and more to the point, Mayday is an example of trying to change the system from within rather than from without. The system is currently too powerful to try changing without engaging with it on its own terms, so it can only be changed from within.
Is there a system you would prefer that would better "represent the will of the people"?
AV, IRV, ranked vote, the Swedish system [0], or heck even the popular vote. "Almost anything else."
You have to be pretty politically ignorant to imply there isn't anything better.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Sweden#Voting
You have to be pretty politically ignorant to imply there isn't anything better.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Sweden#Voting
I recently phone banked for my party for the first time and found that the voter rolls the party was working from had age, gender, race, and how many out of the previous 3 elections the voter had actually shown up to the polls.
It is no wonder that politicians ignore issues affecting of young people: they know for a fact that they don't vote in large numbers.
I voted today. I have always voted since I was of age. I get discouraged living in Florida and having my vote drowned in a sea of geriatrics. But I recognize that participating is the only way to affect change.
It is no wonder that politicians ignore issues affecting of young people: they know for a fact that they don't vote in large numbers.
I voted today. I have always voted since I was of age. I get discouraged living in Florida and having my vote drowned in a sea of geriatrics. But I recognize that participating is the only way to affect change.
Yes, I will be voting. I live in south-east Michigan.
I will be voting because although my vote is statistically insignificant for the larger elections, it carries more weight for local elections.
To the people that say "Don't vote, it's a broken system", I say why not go an write in NOBODY. Do something, because nobody sees not voting as any kind of protest. It's lazy, and you'll never change anything at all by staying home.
I will be voting because although my vote is statistically insignificant for the larger elections, it carries more weight for local elections.
To the people that say "Don't vote, it's a broken system", I say why not go an write in NOBODY. Do something, because nobody sees not voting as any kind of protest. It's lazy, and you'll never change anything at all by staying home.
Writing in for a non-registered write in candidate in Michigan (I live in Michigan, you need to petition to be a write in candidate) results in your vote being thrown out.
So there is no difference between not voting, and writing in "NOBODY". The only difference is the civic duty circlejerk.
So there is no difference between not voting, and writing in "NOBODY". The only difference is the civic duty circlejerk.
In UK elections they do announce the number of spoiled ballots, which might give indication of the number of "neither" votes.
Do they throw out the whole ballot, or just don't count it for that race?
Regardless, staying home isn't a useful form of protest, it won't change anything at all. There is literally no way it could.
Regardless, staying home isn't a useful form of protest, it won't change anything at all. There is literally no way it could.
[deleted](1)
Nope. Not a citizen, or even located geographically close ;)
Do you have the opportunity to vote in your location? If yes, do you?
My country has an up-coming election of self-governance officials (city mayors, etc.). I don't see myself voting as not only there is absolutely no one worth voting for, but this year candidates try to one-up one another in the contest for most stupid election poster.
Just take a look at some: http://joemonster.org/link/pokaz/58169/Kwiatki_kampanii_samo...
Just take a look at some: http://joemonster.org/link/pokaz/58169/Kwiatki_kampanii_samo...
Yes, and yes. Thankfully, there are more choices than "you can choose from these two parties which are all-but-identical, BUT you can pick a RED or a BLUE model."
Tuscaloosa, AL. I live in Alabama full time because I go to school here and work here during the summers, and have for two years. Technically, though, I'm a resident of Louisiana.
I registered to vote in Tuscaloosa in the last presidential election, because I was told I could. Since then, Alabama has passed voter ID laws, and because I don't possess an Alabama photo ID (my driver's license is from Louisiana), I can't vote in Alabama.
I can't vote in Louisiana because I'm not registered there, and even if I was, I don't know anything about the candidates or have any stake in the election there.
I registered to vote in Tuscaloosa in the last presidential election, because I was told I could. Since then, Alabama has passed voter ID laws, and because I don't possess an Alabama photo ID (my driver's license is from Louisiana), I can't vote in Alabama.
I can't vote in Louisiana because I'm not registered there, and even if I was, I don't know anything about the candidates or have any stake in the election there.
Wait, I just looked it up. I can vote with a University ID card.
I'm gonna go vote now.
I'm gonna go vote now.
I don't agree with Doug Casey on a lot of stuff, but his five reasons not to vote are pretty funny and an excellent foil to the constant & unexamined appeals that we vote:
http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/doug-caseys-top-five-r...
http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/doug-caseys-top-five-r...
I always vote. Thank you to the 60+% of you who don't vote, giving my vote more weight.
I voted (and will continue to vote) in every election since I was old enough - didn't matter how big or small. I always look at it as you don't vote you don't have the right to bitch about things :).
That's a common aphorism, but it's not logical. Declining to vote doesn't negate your right to bitch about the political system or even individual politicians, any more than voting and your guy winning negates your right to bitch about that individual (which is slightly more logical, but still doesn't pass muster)
By not voting your showing that you won't even make the slightest effort to get the government you want. I mean, voting isn't hard. It takes maybe 20 minutes. If all the people that don't vote because they don't think it would matter, actually fucking voted, we'd have a significantly different government.
Do you honestly think that we just need more people voting to change the system? The average voter isn't going to understand the underlying failures of a 2 party democracy in which no third party has a chance at significantly upsetting the status quo. Are you going to vote to continue the foreign wars or vote to continue the foreign wars while saying you won't? That's your choice. Also people aren't going to become informed to vote. More people voting would probably just mean a similar split to the current one.
Yes, I honestly think that the system would be more representative of the country if more of the country voted. Young people's views, and those of boomers and the elderly differ greatly on many issues, but they don't vote.
I'm not saying it would magically fix everything but it's certainly a start. But by all means, continue to not vote, and complain about the system, because that's sure to help.
I'm not saying it would magically fix everything but it's certainly a start. But by all means, continue to not vote, and complain about the system, because that's sure to help.
This same logic has been used throughout history by tyrants of all stripes, often when the election results were decided in advance.
You DO have the right to bitch about things, whether you vote or not. You have a constitutionally protected freedom of speech and not voting does not expunge that right.
You are presuming, quite arrogantly as I see it, that someone who doesn't vote has found or can find a candidate they are willing to support. Many people who don't vote find themselves unwilling to support either of the two talking parrots they are given to choose between and conclude the whole exercise if fruitless.
If you live in a state with very close elections it might be worth your time to select the lesser of two evils, or even a good and honest candidate should you have one available somehow. But we have a winner take all system and there are many people in this country who are effectively disenfranchised because they live in gerrymandered districts or districts with a large bias toward one party. Telling those people that they have no right to voice their discontent about the state of their government precisely because they recognize their own powerlessness to change it is extremely disrespectful and ignorant.
You DO have the right to bitch about things, whether you vote or not. You have a constitutionally protected freedom of speech and not voting does not expunge that right.
You are presuming, quite arrogantly as I see it, that someone who doesn't vote has found or can find a candidate they are willing to support. Many people who don't vote find themselves unwilling to support either of the two talking parrots they are given to choose between and conclude the whole exercise if fruitless.
If you live in a state with very close elections it might be worth your time to select the lesser of two evils, or even a good and honest candidate should you have one available somehow. But we have a winner take all system and there are many people in this country who are effectively disenfranchised because they live in gerrymandered districts or districts with a large bias toward one party. Telling those people that they have no right to voice their discontent about the state of their government precisely because they recognize their own powerlessness to change it is extremely disrespectful and ignorant.
It sounds like one of those negative political ads, I've been called arrogant, ignorant, and disrespectful. Of course disenfranchised has to be thrown in there too. You're taking my statement way too seriously. Of course people will bitch whether they voted or not.
Believe me - Even with my party's candidate having almost no chance of winning, I still go vote. I'm voicing my opinion. I feel lucky to be able to do so. I know going in it won't swing the vote, doesn't mean I should just stay home then.
Believe me - Even with my party's candidate having almost no chance of winning, I still go vote. I'm voicing my opinion. I feel lucky to be able to do so. I know going in it won't swing the vote, doesn't mean I should just stay home then.
I agree completely.
How do you vote when there is no candidate you can honestly support?
How do you vote when there is no candidate you can honestly support?
No, for several reasons.
The congressional election in my district is essentially a foregone conclusion and since our voting system is winner-take-all there is really no point in voting for the opposition. I also happen to think both candidates are unqualified to represent themselves, much less a state.
My state has judicial elections as well, which might be worth voting in if any of the candidates were less despicable. Some of their ads are Onion-worthy. All judicial candidates I've seen have breathlessly tried to one-up their opponents by being "tougher on crime" while glossing over thier utter disregard for the either the federal or state Constitutions. It's made me wonder if defense attorneys can even pursue a judicial career in a place like this.
Some have made the argument that not voting is also equivalent to a vote of no confidence in the available candidates and/or system as a whole. I kind of agree with this, but doubt that such a protest is really effective.
One of the few things our highly divided political factions do agree on is that everyone should vote. Preferably for their party, but at least vote for someone. Depending on your perspective, this is either evidence that voting is such an obviously good thing which everyone should do regardless of their circumstances, or (if you are less trusting of their stated motivations) an attempt to ensure their own legitimacy. In a way, each vote that isn't cast is a vote against all the candidates, so the idea that someone would not vote is equally offensive to our political factions regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on. Since I happen to think that many of these individuals do not deserve their present positions, and the candidates their respective caucases and donors have promoted to replace them are no better, not voting is the most natural expression of my opinion "you are all unqualified."
Basically, the marginal value of spending my time not voting (e.g. working, reading, even writing about why I don't see a point in voting in this election) far exceeds the expected return on that same time should I spend it voting. I suspect it's the same for many people. Most arguments to the contrary appeal to various theoretical notions or idealistic purposes/side effects of voting, which to me just sounds like "you should vote because it will make you feel good." If it makes you feel good, then go ahead. Some people like to feel like they're participating. I prefer to know that I'm impacting the decisions that get made in my state in a positive way, and I don't consider selecting the lesser of two evils to meet that requirement.
The congressional election in my district is essentially a foregone conclusion and since our voting system is winner-take-all there is really no point in voting for the opposition. I also happen to think both candidates are unqualified to represent themselves, much less a state.
My state has judicial elections as well, which might be worth voting in if any of the candidates were less despicable. Some of their ads are Onion-worthy. All judicial candidates I've seen have breathlessly tried to one-up their opponents by being "tougher on crime" while glossing over thier utter disregard for the either the federal or state Constitutions. It's made me wonder if defense attorneys can even pursue a judicial career in a place like this.
Some have made the argument that not voting is also equivalent to a vote of no confidence in the available candidates and/or system as a whole. I kind of agree with this, but doubt that such a protest is really effective.
One of the few things our highly divided political factions do agree on is that everyone should vote. Preferably for their party, but at least vote for someone. Depending on your perspective, this is either evidence that voting is such an obviously good thing which everyone should do regardless of their circumstances, or (if you are less trusting of their stated motivations) an attempt to ensure their own legitimacy. In a way, each vote that isn't cast is a vote against all the candidates, so the idea that someone would not vote is equally offensive to our political factions regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on. Since I happen to think that many of these individuals do not deserve their present positions, and the candidates their respective caucases and donors have promoted to replace them are no better, not voting is the most natural expression of my opinion "you are all unqualified."
Basically, the marginal value of spending my time not voting (e.g. working, reading, even writing about why I don't see a point in voting in this election) far exceeds the expected return on that same time should I spend it voting. I suspect it's the same for many people. Most arguments to the contrary appeal to various theoretical notions or idealistic purposes/side effects of voting, which to me just sounds like "you should vote because it will make you feel good." If it makes you feel good, then go ahead. Some people like to feel like they're participating. I prefer to know that I'm impacting the decisions that get made in my state in a positive way, and I don't consider selecting the lesser of two evils to meet that requirement.
Yep. Oakland, CA.