Patriotic Not to Vote? Your Opinion Please

[peterb]

Must be a lot of patriots in Cuba.

[yellow8yellowm]

Here is an sports analogy I really like that makes sense of this question:

You become a winner not on the playing field but on the practice field. No matter how hard you try and no matter how much desire you have win, it means nothing if you only do it on game day.

Back to the original question…If you love your country you will do much more than just “not vote”. If you are upset with the party system, fight it before the election. Volunteer for the libertarian party, etc, but do it before election day and do it before the election year.

If you really have no opinion and don’t care to form one, then don’t vote. But if you think McCain will help this country more than Obama (or vice versa) and you don’t vote just to prove a point, then you are definitely unpatriotic. You are too lazy to try spend some the time and do some work to change the system so instead you decide to sit at home and detach yourself from your country.

[yellow8yellowm]

Here is an sports analogy I really like that makes sense of this question:

You become a winner not on the playing field but on the practice field. No matter how hard you try and no matter how much desire you have win, it means nothing if you only do it on game day.

Back to the original question…If you love your country you will do much more than just “not vote”. If you are upset with the party system, fight it before the election. Volunteer for the libertarian party, etc, but do it before election day and do it before the election year.

If you really have no opinion and don’t care to form one, then don’t vote. But if you think McCain will help this country more than Obama (or vice versa) and you don’t vote just to prove a point, then you are definitely unpatriotic. You are too lazy to try spend some the time and do some work to change the system so instead you decide to sit at home and detach yourself from your country.

[yellow8yellowm]

Here is an sports analogy I really like that makes sense of this question:

You become a winner not on the playing field but on the practice field. No matter how hard you try and no matter how much desire you have win, it means nothing if you only do it on game day.

Back to the original question…If you love your country you will do much more than just “not vote”. If you are upset with the party system, fight it before the election. Volunteer for the libertarian party, etc, but do it before election day and do it before the election year.

If you really have no opinion and don’t care to form one, then don’t vote. But if you think McCain will help this country more than Obama (or vice versa) and you don’t vote just to prove a point, then you are definitely unpatriotic. You are too lazy to try spend some the time and do some work to change the system so instead you decide to sit at home and detach yourself from your country.

[yellow8yellowm]

Here is an sports analogy I really like that makes sense of this question:

You become a winner not on the playing field but on the practice field. No matter how hard you try and no matter how much desire you have win, it means nothing if you only do it on game day.

Back to the original question…If you love your country you will do much more than just “not vote”. If you are upset with the party system, fight it before the election. Volunteer for the libertarian party, etc, but do it before election day and do it before the election year.

If you really have no opinion and don’t care to form one, then don’t vote. But if you think McCain will help this country more than Obama (or vice versa) and you don’t vote just to prove a point, then you are definitely unpatriotic. You are too lazy to try spend some the time and do some work to change the system so instead you decide to sit at home and detach yourself from your country.

[yellow8yellowm]

Here is an sports analogy I really like that makes sense of this question:

You become a winner not on the playing field but on the practice field. No matter how hard you try and no matter how much desire you have win, it means nothing if you only do it on game day.

Back to the original question…If you love your country you will do much more than just “not vote”. If you are upset with the party system, fight it before the election. Volunteer for the libertarian party, etc, but do it before election day and do it before the election year.

If you really have no opinion and don’t care to form one, then don’t vote. But if you think McCain will help this country more than Obama (or vice versa) and you don’t vote just to prove a point, then you are definitely unpatriotic. You are too lazy to try spend some the time and do some work to change the system so instead you decide to sit at home and detach yourself from your country.

[Jim Jones]

Thanks for your opinions and the traffic on this post. While I do not support the authors opinion I think he makes a very unique case. I have a slightly different take on what his ultimate goal is.

I agree with the previous post which advocated putting your time and effort into a third-way candidate but the author in this case does not aim to change the system but instead wants to implode the system within to start from scratch. By not voting the author asserts that you can de-legitimize the current system which is deeply entrenched in place. He is stating his case for ending the two party system through non-participation.

Imagine a democracy where our two parties ran and only 5% of people showed up on election day instead of the usual 40%. Would the politicians who were elected be able to claim that they were elected to represent the people? I don’t think they would have a leg to stand on.

His concept reminds me of what happened to the Tour de France for a few years. All of the corruption and drug use by the athletes led to less sponsorship, vastly reduced fan interest and removal of the race from the sports pages due to the “culture” created by the athletes. They could still race the Tour but what if no one watched, sponsored it or bothered to report the results. The Tour would have gone on but would lack any legitimacy as a competition much like the author suggests the elected government would in his example.

I am not sure his argument regarding “natural law” and his use of the constitution as a moral backstop validates his argument but it would be interesting to see what an election day looked like if no-one showed up to vote.

[Jim Jones]

Thanks for your opinions and the traffic on this post. While I do not support the authors opinion I think he makes a very unique case. I have a slightly different take on what his ultimate goal is.

I agree with the previous post which advocated putting your time and effort into a third-way candidate but the author in this case does not aim to change the system but instead wants to implode the system within to start from scratch. By not voting the author asserts that you can de-legitimize the current system which is deeply entrenched in place. He is stating his case for ending the two party system through non-participation.

Imagine a democracy where our two parties ran and only 5% of people showed up on election day instead of the usual 40%. Would the politicians who were elected be able to claim that they were elected to represent the people? I don’t think they would have a leg to stand on.

His concept reminds me of what happened to the Tour de France for a few years. All of the corruption and drug use by the athletes led to less sponsorship, vastly reduced fan interest and removal of the race from the sports pages due to the “culture” created by the athletes. They could still race the Tour but what if no one watched, sponsored it or bothered to report the results. The Tour would have gone on but would lack any legitimacy as a competition much like the author suggests the elected government would in his example.

I am not sure his argument regarding “natural law” and his use of the constitution as a moral backstop validates his argument but it would be interesting to see what an election day looked like if no-one showed up to vote.

[Jim Jones]

Thanks for your opinions and the traffic on this post. While I do not support the authors opinion I think he makes a very unique case. I have a slightly different take on what his ultimate goal is.

I agree with the previous post which advocated putting your time and effort into a third-way candidate but the author in this case does not aim to change the system but instead wants to implode the system within to start from scratch. By not voting the author asserts that you can de-legitimize the current system which is deeply entrenched in place. He is stating his case for ending the two party system through non-participation.

Imagine a democracy where our two parties ran and only 5% of people showed up on election day instead of the usual 40%. Would the politicians who were elected be able to claim that they were elected to represent the people? I don’t think they would have a leg to stand on.

His concept reminds me of what happened to the Tour de France for a few years. All of the corruption and drug use by the athletes led to less sponsorship, vastly reduced fan interest and removal of the race from the sports pages due to the “culture” created by the athletes. They could still race the Tour but what if no one watched, sponsored it or bothered to report the results. The Tour would have gone on but would lack any legitimacy as a competition much like the author suggests the elected government would in his example.

I am not sure his argument regarding “natural law” and his use of the constitution as a moral backstop validates his argument but it would be interesting to see what an election day looked like if no-one showed up to vote.

[Jim Jones]

Thanks for your opinions and the traffic on this post. While I do not support the authors opinion I think he makes a very unique case. I have a slightly different take on what his ultimate goal is.

I agree with the previous post which advocated putting your time and effort into a third-way candidate but the author in this case does not aim to change the system but instead wants to implode the system within to start from scratch. By not voting the author asserts that you can de-legitimize the current system which is deeply entrenched in place. He is stating his case for ending the two party system through non-participation.

Imagine a democracy where our two parties ran and only 5% of people showed up on election day instead of the usual 40%. Would the politicians who were elected be able to claim that they were elected to represent the people? I don’t think they would have a leg to stand on.

His concept reminds me of what happened to the Tour de France for a few years. All of the corruption and drug use by the athletes led to less sponsorship, vastly reduced fan interest and removal of the race from the sports pages due to the “culture” created by the athletes. They could still race the Tour but what if no one watched, sponsored it or bothered to report the results. The Tour would have gone on but would lack any legitimacy as a competition much like the author suggests the elected government would in his example.

I am not sure his argument regarding “natural law” and his use of the constitution as a moral backstop validates his argument but it would be interesting to see what an election day looked like if no-one showed up to vote.

[Jim Jones]

Thanks for your opinions and the traffic on this post. While I do not support the authors opinion I think he makes a very unique case. I have a slightly different take on what his ultimate goal is.

I agree with the previous post which advocated putting your time and effort into a third-way candidate but the author in this case does not aim to change the system but instead wants to implode the system within to start from scratch. By not voting the author asserts that you can de-legitimize the current system which is deeply entrenched in place. He is stating his case for ending the two party system through non-participation.

Imagine a democracy where our two parties ran and only 5% of people showed up on election day instead of the usual 40%. Would the politicians who were elected be able to claim that they were elected to represent the people? I don’t think they would have a leg to stand on.

His concept reminds me of what happened to the Tour de France for a few years. All of the corruption and drug use by the athletes led to less sponsorship, vastly reduced fan interest and removal of the race from the sports pages due to the “culture” created by the athletes. They could still race the Tour but what if no one watched, sponsored it or bothered to report the results. The Tour would have gone on but would lack any legitimacy as a competition much like the author suggests the elected government would in his example.

I am not sure his argument regarding “natural law” and his use of the constitution as a moral backstop validates his argument but it would be interesting to see what an election day looked like if no-one showed up to vote.

[underdose]

I think Bill Maher put it better when he said that “the lesser of two evils is better than the greater of two evils.” This plan of not voting only works if everyone goes along with it. But, sadly, a frighteningly large percentage of the population are uninformed and fervently in favor of the status quo (or worse extremes) and will get out and vote. Not voting means abdicating to the unsophisticated masses. By voting, you at least have a fighting chance of participating in one of the key functions of the constitution, “checks and balances”. So I disagree with the author of that piece. What he suggests I would characterize as “surrender”.

[underdose]

I think Bill Maher put it better when he said that “the lesser of two evils is better than the greater of two evils.” This plan of not voting only works if everyone goes along with it. But, sadly, a frighteningly large percentage of the population are uninformed and fervently in favor of the status quo (or worse extremes) and will get out and vote. Not voting means abdicating to the unsophisticated masses. By voting, you at least have a fighting chance of participating in one of the key functions of the constitution, “checks and balances”. So I disagree with the author of that piece. What he suggests I would characterize as “surrender”.

[underdose]

I think Bill Maher put it better when he said that “the lesser of two evils is better than the greater of two evils.” This plan of not voting only works if everyone goes along with it. But, sadly, a frighteningly large percentage of the population are uninformed and fervently in favor of the status quo (or worse extremes) and will get out and vote. Not voting means abdicating to the unsophisticated masses. By voting, you at least have a fighting chance of participating in one of the key functions of the constitution, “checks and balances”. So I disagree with the author of that piece. What he suggests I would characterize as “surrender”.

[underdose]

I think Bill Maher put it better when he said that “the lesser of two evils is better than the greater of two evils.” This plan of not voting only works if everyone goes along with it. But, sadly, a frighteningly large percentage of the population are uninformed and fervently in favor of the status quo (or worse extremes) and will get out and vote. Not voting means abdicating to the unsophisticated masses. By voting, you at least have a fighting chance of participating in one of the key functions of the constitution, “checks and balances”. So I disagree with the author of that piece. What he suggests I would characterize as “surrender”.

[Author]

Posts