Sitting out this election?

The other problem with not voting is that the people in power won't get the intended message. Instead of thinking, "Gosh! The low voter turnout shows that the people are dissatified with what we're doing, so we need to change out ways!" Instead, they'll probably think, "If we keep doing what we're doing, then people who won't vote for us anyway will stay away from the polls, which ensures that we'll keep winning."

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think not voting is it.

Besides, I tend to consider voting to be jester's license, in a way. Voting is the flip side of freedom of speech in our society, one our tasks as responsible citizens. Or, to be blunt, if you don't vote, then I'm not interested in hearing your opinion.>

Sitting out to make a statement (especially to vote against a system that produces . . . false choices), is the coward's way out. Sitting out says nothing, and sitting out will change nothing. All it does is enable the abstainer to say they weren't responsible, when in fact they were.

Engage. Make a decision. Sort out which of the two candidates, such as they are, is best for the country. Take a stand.

And next time, if you don't like the "system" or the "two bad alternatives", get involved earlier. Be part of the solution.>

Life is about choices, and sometimes none of the choices are attractive, but you have to make one nevertheless. You just give it your best shot.

Voting is every American's civic duty. It is your chance to declare where you stand and do something about it. And I agree with much of what was said above as well.>

I'm voting straight Republican because I'm tired of the media gleefully telling us that the Democrats are going to win, as if it's a foregone or near-foregone conclusion. I want to do my part to have them wake up Wednesday morning scratching their pointy heads saying, "What happened?">

MacIntyre says the best way to vote against a system that produces what he considers false choices is not to vote.

Wrong. There are two better choices:

1. Become active politically in between elections.

2. Dedicate yourself to a third party if neither of the two major ones reflects your stands on issue.

A third party almost became a long-term force when Ross Perot formed his Reform Party. In 1992 and 1996, Perot syphoned off enough votes from Republicans to elect and re-elect Pres. Clinton. If Perot weren't such a flake and abandoned his own efforts, the Reform Party wouldn't have turned into such a joke.

And, no, I never supported Perot.

Remember, also, that new parties sometimes arrive when older parties lose steam. The Republicans were formed in the mid-19th century upon the ashes of the Whig Party. Something similar might happen within the next generation -- though which party would bite the dust remains to be seen.

Besides, politicians don't care about who's *not* voting. They only care about who *is* -- especially if the *who* is likely to support them.

Finally, let's be adults. In life, we rarely get a chance to choose between black and white. Sometimes, we have to choose between black and black. We don't get to check out of responsible decision-making just because we don't like the alternative.>

I couldn't stand to vote for our governor last time around, (he is an idiot who is running the state into the ground, thank God his term is over) and there were no viable 3rd party candidates that I could vote for.

But, I did not stay home. I wrote-in a vote for my husband. (I sure don't want the job.) Now, it didn't count, since he wasn't listed as a write-in, but it did show up as a voter that didn't elect either of the main idiots.

I have a rule that I won't vote for someone I wouldn't invite into my home, even if I agree with their politics, so there have been a number of elections where I have written-in.

Don't sit out, vote for who you can in good conscience, and ignore the rest. That sends a much better message than just sitting home, which emboldens the opposition.>

This dialogue on the 2004 election is worth reading again, methinks.>

"But wait, Reader! Don't you want to run out and vote Republican to protect traditional marriage?"

(And I get called a one-note poster!!!)

"Protect" it from WHAT, Mr. Dreher?

Unless and until you can answer that quetion, you will continue to not be believed.

Besides, it doesn't matter WHO you vote for (for whom you vote) - the GOVERNMENT always gets in.>

I may agree with MacIntyre in principle, but not in its application if it were applied to the present situation.

Personally, coming from the Soviet Union, I recognize that although the Am. system is not perfect, in the end, we do have the best political system in the world. Enough people voting for a third party is much more of a message than voter apathy at the polls. And, to a certain extent, I think it is irresponsible to not cast one s vote, even if after much deliberation one can't chose between the democrats and the republicans. There are other options: third-party, "write-ins. Its one thing to not vote at all in a rigged election where you know the dictator will win, it s something else to abstain from voting in a legitimate democratic system even if you dislike your choices. I mean, let s face I, there will always be elections where it is not a clear cut vote (I would think that I would have had a hard time voting in 1896, if I wasn't a girl and could vote, that is...).

As a side note, I've been thinking about MacIntyre's monasteries and discussing them with one of my friends. His response to me when I told him that the monasteries seem more and more enticing to me each day was this: "MacIntyre's monasteries are pleasant to think about, but while they help preserve the faith, I am not sure how much they help to spread it." And to a certain extent, he's right. Indeed, in the USSR most of the monasteries were destroyed and its inhabitants killed, escaping into the monastery did not prove very effective then. And even if one thinks of the monasteries as virtual, even then they create a ghetto mentality. There has to be an alternative to engaging the culture rather than escaping from it. There has to be a way of both preserving what we know is good and true and helping to redeem that which we have. I guess this is how I look at voting. Would I have voted in the Soviet Union? No. But, this is the United States of America, not a dictatorial regime, thankfully, we are still a relatively well functioning democracy (despite all of its faults) and in a functioning democracy the best way to be heard is through your vote.

Rod, the situation is not as hopeless as it could be; don't throw your voice away.

-Mariya>

A viable third (and fourth, etc) party might shake things up, but with our non-parliamentary system it is very difficult to cast one's vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning, potentially throwing the election to somebody one abhores.

Some locales have used instant run-off voting to address this issue, and many states have initiative processes that might enable instant run-off to become the state-wide election method. I'd certainly like to see a few states adopt it and see how it goes (including my own - oh how voting Green would make my toes tingle!).>

To those of you who seriously contemplate not voting, submitting blank ballots, etc., I suggest you read the following excerpt from Jill Stewart's Oct. 29 column about the consequences of such actions. Stewart is one of the sharpest observers of the California political scene:

The sharp pollster Mark Baldassare, director of research at Public Policy Institute of California, tells me, "What is going on is that a lot of money is spent on directing relatively few people to vote, and telling the rest of them to stay home. Campaign consultants buy a list telling them who the voters are, they winnow it down to the 50 percent they need, and they try to get as many of the other people not to vote. And it works. This is no accident, that we are spending more money and getting less voters."

Think of 2002's voter "boycott," when 7.7 million of our 15 million voters participated, a new low. Seven million others didn't even register, including many Latinos, conservatives, renters and other subgroups who didn't see the point.

Of course, there's a huge point. Just 10 percent of California's 35.1 million residents made Davis the winner in 2002. In effect, he wasn't elected by the people, but by deep pockets. And, boy, did he know what side his bread was buttered on, leading to his ruin.

Low turnout also eased the way for an onslaught of ballot measures. Here's why: To qualify, an initiative must collect signatures of 5 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the previous election. The fewer people vote for governor this time, the fewer signatures needed, next time, to qualify initiatives.

Special-interest groups want low turnouts for governor so they can qualify future ballot measures with ever-dwindling numbers of signatures. Pretty slick.

more to come...>

Of course US citizens should vote;always and forever. For some of us people died so we could vote and it would be a travesty to sit it out as a protest.

anon>

So, with hotbed issues like a federal court ordering a legislature to make law, Cloning, Abortion; federal court attacks on organizations because they are "Christian" and provide secular services to states and ordering them to repay the state for those services, you would sit out in an unheard protest. Think logically about the environment we live in...Look at the party platforms, make the best choice to protect, if not advance Christian Morals.

After that I challenge you who whine about what your legislators are doing after you elect them by asking, how many times in the last year have you called or written a snail mail letter to them expressing your views. Any law maker operating in a vacuum is succeptable to self indulgence!! And I am talking about ANY legislator, Strong Elder in the church Christian or not...

I don't normally rant like this, but you who would sit out need to look at what is really at stake in this election. If you doubt anything at the national level would affect you in your secure suburban church, take a look at the IOWA judges decision in the IFI-(Inner Freedom Initiative) case. The reprecussions of that decision alone should send you to the polls to stand up for your Christian faith.

Christ himself calls you to vote...Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars'.

Finally, if there are no good candidates who are "Pastor Perfect" enough for you, maybe you should jump in the fray as a candidate and see how you fare in the glaring lights of the media.....>