Non-voters and the two-party system.

[Eireann Fae]

I don't vote because I live in Texas. This is a solid red state, and that is not going to change.

I did vote once, I believe it was in 2008. The approximate numbers for who voted what, with my selection in bold:

Republican - 2.4 million
Democrat - 2.1 million
Progressive - 100,000
Green - 17,000

Even if all three non-reds banded together, Perry would still have kept a firm grip on the governorship. Suffice it to say, I was disappointed my first - and likely last - time out voting.

So your guy didn't win and now you're giving up? You could join the Democrats and work hard to turn Texas around. After all, the state gave us Lyndon Johnson once upon a time.

I also don't have a valid photo ID :|

Also, in more recent times the state has given us Rick Perry as its longest-sitting governor, and Dubya as the governor before that :(

[Farnhamia]

So your guy didn't win and now you're giving up? You could join the Democrats and work hard to turn Texas around. After all, the state gave us Lyndon Johnson once upon a time.

I also don't have a valid photo ID :|

Also, in more recent times the state has given us Rick Perry as its longest-sitting governor, and Dubya as the governor before that

Well, gosh, you're right, there's nothing to be done. I'm sorry, but giving up is unacceptable. If you don't participate by voting for or volunteering with or donating to the side you support, you give up your right to complain.

[Eireann Fae]

I also don't have a valid photo ID :|

Also, in more recent times the state has given us Rick Perry as its longest-sitting governor, and Dubya as the governor before that :(

Well, gosh, you're right, there's nothing to be done. :roll: I'm sorry, but giving up is unacceptable. If you don't participate by voting for or volunteering with or donating to the side you support, you give up your right to complain.

I donated many an online cheer to Ron Paul :)

[Ashmoria]

Well, gosh, you're right, there's nothing to be done. I'm sorry, but giving up is unacceptable. If you don't participate by voting for or volunteering with or donating to the side you support, you give up your right to complain.

I donated many an online cheer to Ron Paul

oh i thought you meant you didnt like republicans. why whine when your party is in control?

[Farnhamia]

Well, gosh, you're right, there's nothing to be done. I'm sorry, but giving up is unacceptable. If you don't participate by voting for or volunteering with or donating to the side you support, you give up your right to complain.

I donated many an online cheer to Ron Paul

You must have been exhausted.

[Afghanistan 1996 to 2001]

I believe the best solution is to simply abolish your western abhorrence of democracy and allow Allah to rule the world as he intended, through his prophet Mohammed.

[Farnhamia]

I believe the best solution is to simply abolish your western abhorrence of democracy and allow Allah to rule the world as he intended, through his prophet Mohammed.

Ah, no, but thanks for the offer.

[Eireann Fae]

I donated many an online cheer to Ron Paul :)

oh i thought you meant you didnt like republicans. why whine when your party is in control?

Not a typical republican, Paul. Not my ideal candidate by any means, either - sadly, he is the best I've seen. I support socialism a great deal more than Paul would allow, obviously, given his desire for a diminutive government, and mine for a national health service and a well-functioning educational system. I like his non-interference policies, though, and his opposition to the Fed.

[Chestaan]

oh i thought you meant you didnt like republicans. why whine when your party is in control?

Not a typical republican, Paul. Not my ideal candidate by any means, either - sadly, he is the best I've seen. I support socialism a great deal more than Paul would allow, obviously, given his desire for a diminutive government, and mine for a national health service and a well-functioning educational system. I like his non-interference policies, though, and his opposition to the Fed.

You don't seem like the typical Ron Paul supporter I must say. And if you're looking for a national health service then you really should support someone else.

[Eireann Fae]

Not a typical republican, Paul. Not my ideal candidate by any means, either - sadly, he is the best I've seen. I support socialism a great deal more than Paul would allow, obviously, given his desire for a diminutive government, and mine for a national health service and a well-functioning educational system. I like his non-interference policies, though, and his opposition to the Fed.

You don't seem like the typical Ron Paul supporter I must say. And if you're looking for a national health service then you really should support someone else.

I don't know of any American politician that recently ran for highest office to support NHS - or any in Congress, for that matter, and doubt there are any such politicians in my state. So, I have to go with my second-dearest issue - getting us to stop fucking about in foreign nations and pissing off the locals :x

[Risottia]

With FPTP, most of the times, a large chunk (or even the majority) of the voters don't get any representation - because the seat/offices goes to a list/candidate who won the plurality, with figures typically between 30% and 55%.

On the contrary, my view is that regardless of whether the MP I have is the one I voted for, it's still their job to represent me in Parliament, to be aware of how the national laws will affect the local issues and argue against that which will have a negative impact.

Why? You didn't want him in the first place. In the best case, he's going to represent those who elected him FIRST (to keep his electoral base), and eventually will try to expand his base to those who didn't vote for him. But bashing the OTHER candidate in his constituency would be easier, so, he's not going to benefit in the slightest from representing you and your opinion.
Also, it's not like laws have only a local impact. Most of the times, laws passed by a national parliament have a nationwide or worldwide purpose, and local effects, if any, tend to be secondary.

[Risottia]

"Supposedly"?
You mean the US gov't doesn't know how many eligible voters there are, and how many of them actually voted?

No, I'm using that as a qualifier just in case it could be wrong. There's no source I'm 100% certain I trust.

Ok.

WTF do they mean "probably eligible"? One is eligible or he's not. Tertium non datur.

There are a lot of things in the US that can keep you from registering to vote. People that are over eighteen but not actually registered are therefore "probably eligible", but may not be for any number of reasons.

Again, either eligible or not. "Eligible" means "you are allowed to register", right? Once you've registered, you're "elected" to vote. It remains to be seen whether you actually vote or abstain from voting - which is a way of expressing an opinion anyway.
And since voter registration is entirely a governmental affair... I'd expect the gov't to know. Even just because in the US people can register even during voting operations - an extra afflux of people would mean there could be not enough ballot papers.

I'd require the gov't to know it for sure.

Registering to vote is not a mandatory thing in the US. You can quite literally go your whole life without even approaching a polling station. It's kind of silly to track people who aren't registering to vote for voter eligibility. They're not voting, why track them for voting?

The gov't has to track them anyway, just to know how many people live and where do they live (pretty useful with natural disasters, for one); and also to track about tax evasion, immigration and emigration, health conditions (mandatory vaccination campaigns anyone?) etc. I'd expect those data, plus criminal records, would be enough to know how many people eligible for voting are there.

[Greed and Death]

non voters are people dissatisfied with the party they would normally vote for, but not dissatisfied enough to vote against the party.

[Linux and the X]

Again, either eligible or not. "Eligible" means "you are allowed to register", right? Once you've registered, you're "elected" to vote. It remains to be seen whether you actually vote or abstain from voting - which is a way of expressing an opinion anyway.
And since voter registration is entirely a governmental affair... I'd expect the gov't to know. Even just because in the US people can register even during voting operations - an extra afflux of people would mean there could be not enough ballot papers.

You're mostly right about the definition of eligible (there are a few people who are allowed to register but not (officially) allowed to use that registration, such as people nearing their eighteenth birthday). But "elected" to vote is not terminology I've ever heard in the US; candidates are elected, not voters. Also, in most of the US, one cannot register on election day (well, one CAN, but it won't take effect until the next election). In Ohio, for example, the effective end of registration (the actual end is only a month, but "registration" is considered to occur when county officials register someone with the state, and they have nearly a month from receiving the application to actually do that) is nearly two months before the election.

As far as the mandatory vaccines you mention, those only seem to apply to students and employees in a few industries (such as healthcare and teaching); those who are subject to mandatory vaccination are, of course, tracked through the status that causes them to be subject to the policy.

[Seleucas]

If you don't participate by voting for or volunteering with or donating to the side you support, you give up your right to complain.

It would make more sense that you forfeit your right to complain if you participate in the election; by advancing a candidate, you are implicitly agreeing to the outcome of the election whether you win or not. But if your problem isn't with the specific candidates, but with the system itself (i.e. it is bound to produce results you are against no matter what you do), I don't see what point there could be in voting, or why you would be yielding your right to complain.

non voters are people dissatisfied with the party they would normally vote for, but not dissatisfied enough to vote against the party.

What about people who aren't satisfied with any party?

[Arumdaum]

So your guy didn't win and now you're giving up? You could join the Democrats and work hard to turn Texas around. After all, the state gave us Lyndon Johnson once upon a time.

I also don't have a valid photo ID :|

Also, in more recent times the state has given us Rick Perry as its longest-sitting governor, and Dubya as the governor before that

Texas is gradually and slowly becoming more Democrat.

I think I've read some reports where it could be a swing state by 2020.

[Atollus]

non voters are people dissatisfied with the party they would normally vote for, but not dissatisfied enough to vote against the party.

There are also people who realize their vote is worthless if the party they vote for does not gain majority in their state. Thanks to the electorate, minority votes per state are literally thrown out as popular vote is invalid for presidential election. Why vote if it won't count for anything? Congress is full of corrupt asshats no matter who you vote for. So really if you are going to vote at all its only real purpose are for state elections or local ones. And far too many don't care about the later in the first place.

[Unchecked Expansion]

non voters are people dissatisfied with the party they would normally vote for, but not dissatisfied enough to vote against the party.

There are also people who realize their vote is worthless if the party they vote for does not gain majority in their state. Thanks to the electorate, minority votes per state are literally thrown out as popular vote is invalid for presidential election. Why vote if it won't count for anything? Congress is full of corrupt asshats no matter who you vote for. So really if you are going to vote at all its only real purpose are for state elections or local ones. And far too many don't care about the later in the first place.

If you don't vote because your party doesn't win, you reduce the visibility of your party. They see it as a lost cause, put less effort into winning new members and add to the spiral until they don't exist. If you vote anyway, just to show that you exist, you can show that there is a point to being there, that they are wanted, then you encourage more efforts, possibly recruiting more voters for the next time around, which means it would be more worthwhile to try and win yet more votes, and so on.
Change doesn't happen overnight, so giving up because you can't win this one is stupid

[Atollus]

If you don't vote because your party doesn't win, you reduce the visibility of your party. They see it as a lost cause, put less effort into winning new members and add to the spiral until they don't exist. If you vote anyway, just to show that you exist, you can show that there is a point to being there, that they are wanted, then you encourage more efforts, possibly recruiting more voters for the next time around, which means it would be more worthwhile to try and win yet more votes, and so on.
Change doesn't happen overnight, so giving up because you can't win this one is stupid

Perhaps. However the type of change you speak of would take a long concentrated, and graduated effort of millions of people over the course of 2 or 3 generations to accomplish. I am unlikely to see it in my lifetime failing an abolishment of the electorate or violent revolution. Therefore I say screw it.

[Eireann Fae]

Texas is gradually and slowly becoming more Democrat.

I think I've read some reports where it could be a swing state by 2020.

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/ ... texas.html

http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2012/09/t ... ounty.html

You'll forgive me if I'm less than optimistic...

Anyway, I'd also like to see green, gold, orange, violet, brown and grey on that map. We need more than two (viable) parties. There are what, less than five independents in Congress right now? All caucusing with republicans and democrats, because that's how our shitty system is set up...

Perhaps. However the type of change you speak of would take a long concentrated, and graduated effort of millions of people over the course of 2 or 3 generations to accomplish. I am unlikely to see it in my lifetime failing an abolishment of the electorate or violent revolution. Therefore I say screw it.

+1

[Gauntleted Fist]

Again, either eligible or not. "Eligible" means "you are allowed to register", right? Once you've registered, you're "elected" to vote.

Why elected? It's that you're simply allowed to vote.

It remains to be seen whether you actually vote or abstain from voting - which is a way of expressing an opinion anyway.

I don't disagree.

And since voter registration is entirely a governmental affair... I'd expect the gov't to know. Even just because in the US people can register even during voting operations - an extra afflux of people would mean there could be not enough ballot papers.

The gov't has to track them anyway, just to know how many people live and where do they live (pretty useful with natural disasters, for one); and also to track about tax evasion, immigration and emigration, health conditions (mandatory vaccination campaigns anyone?) etc. I'd expect those data, plus criminal records, would be enough to know how many people eligible for voting are there.

That's done by the Census, which happens once every ten years. Every amount of people before/during/after the Census is merely an estimate. Mandatory vaccinations are not A Thing in the US. Pretty much under any circumstance, even biological disaster (Plague).

[Maurepas]

I voted in the last election. I'm having a problem justifying a vote in this one. I hate prettymuch the entirety of Mitt's platform, but I'm not the biggest fan of Obama's either.

And there aren't any Legitimate contenders in the third parties I can see myself lining up behind either. I don't want to pay $8/gal for gas, so the Greens are out, and I want to be able to get funding for College or, god forbid, the fire department, so the Libertarians are out.

Dunno where to turn. I just want someone who'll legalize Pot, protect the status quo on the internet, decrease foreign aid, cut from the military budget, end the wars, and give me universal healthcare and college funding, and raise taxes on the rich. All the while keeping gas prices as low as possible and keeping food costs low.

But good luck finding that.

[Linux and the X]

I voted in the last election. I'm having a problem justifying a vote in this one. I hate prettymuch the entirety of Mitt's platform, but I'm not the biggest fan of Obama's either.

And there aren't any Legitimate contenders in the third parties I can see myself lining up behind either. I don't want to pay $8/gal for gas, so the Greens are out, and I want to be able to get funding for College or, god forbid, the fire department, so the Libertarians are out.

Dunno where to turn. I just want someone who'll legalize Pot, protect the status quo on the internet, decrease foreign aid, cut from the military budget, end the wars, and give me universal healthcare and college funding, and raise taxes on the rich. All the while keeping gas prices as low as possible and keeping food costs low.

But good luck finding that.

If you live in a swing state, you should vote for Obama; bad though he is, he's better than Romney. If you don't live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter much, so don't limit yourself to viable candidates.

[Maurepas]

I voted in the last election. I'm having a problem justifying a vote in this one. I hate prettymuch the entirety of Mitt's platform, but I'm not the biggest fan of Obama's either.

And there aren't any Legitimate contenders in the third parties I can see myself lining up behind either. I don't want to pay $8/gal for gas, so the Greens are out, and I want to be able to get funding for College or, god forbid, the fire department, so the Libertarians are out.

Dunno where to turn. I just want someone who'll legalize Pot, protect the status quo on the internet, decrease foreign aid, cut from the military budget, end the wars, and give me universal healthcare and college funding, and raise taxes on the rich. All the while keeping gas prices as low as possible and keeping food costs low.

But good luck finding that.

If you live in a swing state, you should vote for Obama; bad though he is, he's better than Romney. If you don't live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter much, so don't limit yourself to viable candidates.

MS is going to Mittens, whether I like it or not. But still, I like to at least pretend my vote means something, >_>

[Linux and the X]

If you live in a swing state, you should vote for Obama; bad though he is, he's better than Romney. If you don't live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter much, so don't limit yourself to viable candidates.

MS is going to Mittens, whether I like it or not. But still, I like to at least pretend my vote means something, >_>

It's, uh, a symbolic statement. Yeah. That sounds good.