Religious obligation to vote?

[Guest MormonGator]

Because it is false; b/c of 3rd party voters Bush II was elected? Obama was elected? twice? not hardly. Oh wait, right it's because people didn't show up.  As if McCain would have been that much better or Romney? You know how corrupt the system is. Romney was Democrat the only reason he became Repub was so he could run against Kennedy outside the primary.

 Great. See, I disagree. If people who stayed home voted for Romney or not a third party in close states, we would have turned the electoral college.

[yjacket]

 Instead of name calling (Jerk? Really?) why don't you tell me what you don't like about it? Then we can discuss the matter and see why we disagree. 

Nope, you started it first- you were a jerk; casting blame on those people who vote 3rd party or who don't vote for the mess we are in.  That is being a complete jerk.

 

If you want to cast blame, cast blame on the people who voted for the person you don't like. That would be just. I stand by it-don't be a jerk. You were the one who made the claim that it is their fault-why don't you back it up.

[Guest MormonGator]

Like I said, it is a very complex reason.  It is nowhere near what you are thinking.  So, I'd appreciate you not judging me when you don't know the whole story.

 

 

 

And, yes, I am still allowed to complain, cause that's just the way I roll :) .

1) Too late. I can judge anyone I want too. You just don't have to listen or accept my results. 

2) You won't be taken seriously if you complain and not vote. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Nope, you started it first- you were a jerk; casting blame on those people who vote 3rd party or who don't vote for the mess we are in.  That is being a complete jerk.

 

If you want to cast blame, cast blame on the people who voted for the person you don't like. That would be just. I stand by it-don't be a jerk. You were the one who made the claim that it is their fault-why don't you back it up.

 Perfect! Thank you for clearing it up. 

[Guest]

1) Too late. I can judge anyone I want too. You just don't have to listen or accept my results. 

2) You won't be taken seriously if you complain and not vote. 

1) True, you can.  But I'd still appreciate it if you didn't. So neener.

2) If that's the way you roll.  Cause this is the way I roll (clockwise).

[yjacket]

 Great. See, I disagree. If people who stayed home voted for Romney or not a third party in close states, we would have turned the electoral college.

And Romney would have been sooooo much better.  We wouldn't have had ObamaCare, no we would have had RomneyCare-hmm Mass. health system ring a bell. For being a libertarian, you are pretty uneducated about the two party system and how it works.

 

""The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea, acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election, without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." 

Carroll Quiqley- one of Bill Clinton's mentors.

 

Geez man, get educated. 

[prisonchaplain]

Socialists, Libertarians, Isolationists, those mostly concerned with a few social issues--folks of these persuasions may be underwhelmed by major party candidates.  Personally, I faced a local slate of politicians this year who were all pro-choice. Some folks will not vote for a pro-choice candidate, period.  It's an automatic disqualifier.  That position would have meant not voting, or choosing a 3rd party candidate. While I cannot blame them, I voted for the main party candidate I believed would do the better job.

[SpiritDragon]

I do not believe one has a moral nor civic obligation to vote. I do preface this by saying that I do vote. However, I have found a few arguments about not voting that I do not begrudge those who don't vote.

 

Let there be no mistake about what government really is; government really is legalized theft and killing. Once you tear down all the pretty facades, slogans, wave-flagging, etc. the absolute naked truth is that government is a mechanism whereby a society determines that some individuals have the ability to steal and kill without penalties. Whether we call that ability to steal a "regulation" or a "law", make no mistake when the EPA fines a company, when a state government fines a business, it is theft, i.e. I have money, I don't voluntarily give it up-you forcibly take it from me-that is theft.

 

There is a very, very good reason not to vote for the "lesser of two evils"; it is called the "mandate principle". How many times after an election do we hear that the person just voted in now has a "mandate" to put into place his ideas? When individuals choose the lesser of two evils and don't vote for a candidate they can actually believe in they are voting for evil. In fact they are giving more legitimacy to that evil than if they had never voted.  In the last election approximately 130 million people voted; how many of those people actually really wanted the person they voted for vs. just held their nose? In a country of 300 million, 130 million voting is pretty good. Now what if instead of voting against someone, we voted for someone, even if they were going to lose-what if more parties had access to the ballot and say instead of a 51/47 split it was a 35/30/30/5 split. Well the 35% might still win-but it would be fairly obvious that at ly that east 65% of the country wanted something else. The person that claims a "mandate" with a 35% win is going to look pretty stupid.

 

We have a moral and a civic obligation to support good laws and good candidates-we do not have a moral and civic obligation simply to vote. Because simply voting might end up supporting bad laws and bad candidates.

 

As a Canadian I can say that we do have more party options, but it doesn't really improve much. It just gives people that many more things to argue about, leads to strategic voting against the "most evil" parties and the government still claims they have a strong mandate when they form government with only 30% of the popular vote.

[Vort]

No it is the way it works here b/c of individuals like you; overseas voting for something does work pretty well. 

Take a look at Spain (not a third-world country).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Spain

 

Spain? Seriously? You want to point out Spain as a great example of putting your vote to work?

[Crypto]

Spain? Seriously? You want to point out Spain as a great example of putting your vote to work?

Pick a country, any country. Just not one that is considered tyrannical, and you'll likely end up with a similar example. Lot's of political parties in most countries.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

Geez man, get educated. 

 Thank you. Again with the personal insults. You are better than this. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a "jerk" or "uneducated". In fact, people who disagree help you by showing you a different point of view. Why would you say that about someone? Does it make you feel better? I ask that seriously-I mean no harm, just asking. 

Don't lower yourself to that level, in particular when you are talking to a brother.  

Edited January 20, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

And Romney would have been sooooo much better.  We wouldn't have had ObamaCare, no we would have had RomneyCare-hmm Mass. health system ring a bell. For being a libertarian, you are pretty uneducated about the two party system and how it works.

 

""The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea, acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election, without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." 

Carroll Quiqley- one of Bill Clinton's mentors.

 

Geez man, get educated. 

 

Yeah, you get educated.

 

RomneyCare is actually a GOOD healthcare program.  The first quality that made it good is it is a STATE program.

 

Gee weez.  No wonder you got Obama for 8 instead of for 4.

[prisonchaplain]

Pick a country, any country. Just not one that is considered tyrannical, and you'll likely end up with a similar example. Lot's of political parties in most countries.

 

While I support the right of third parties to form and run, the U.S. two-party system is superior. It leaves extreme voices as opinion-influencers, rather than deal-makers/breakers. Further, it does give a greater sense of legitimacy when the majority party can claim something close to a majority win. Serious political leaders must win over a much larger segment of society than is necessary in multi-party systems.  Call 'em Republicrats or Democans, but our messy system is still one of the best in history. 

[Guest]

While I support the right of third parties to form and run, the U.S. two-party system is superior. It leaves extreme voices as opinion-influencers, rather than deal-makers/breakers. Further, it does give a greater sense of legitimacy when the majority party can claim something close to a majority win. Serious political leaders must win over a much larger segment of society than is necessary in multi-party systems.  Call 'em Republicrats or Democans, but our messy system is still one of the best in history. 

 

I like the Philippine system - if they would just clean it up!  You can choose a President from one party and a VP from a different party.  Party-alignment is less about policy but more about who pays your campaign.  So each candidate runs by virtue of their own individual platform.  It stops people from having to align with undesired qualities just to be in a party - they can run their own specific platform and people vote for that specific platform with the person's strength of character.  So they mix-and-match who they believe can work together to accomplish things.

 

The problem with the Philippines is - we have a politically ignorant populace.  So, a "John Travolta" can become President just because he played a President in a movie once.  It is then easy to buy an election.  But that's not a problem with the system.  That's a problem with the people.  But things have improved a lot since the internet-age.  It's harder to swindle people when word of a politician's actions can reach people at the speed of electricity.

[askandanswer]

Just by way of information, Australia is one of the few countries in the world where it is required by law that on election day, you have to turn up at the election booth and have your name crossed off the list by electoral officials to indicate that you have showed up. Most people here refer to this as compulsory voting, but in truth, once you have had your name crossed off you can leave the polling booth without having actually voted, or if you really don't want to vote, you can just drop a blank ballot paper into the ballot box. But by law, you at least have to turn up at the polling booth, wait in line, and have your name marked off.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess, I don't like the individual/independent system you outline. You suggest it would work if they clean it up. Could it be that big-money can more easily by off an independent than a politician openly allied with a party?  A Republican politician may be able to claim conscious on a single diversion--maybe even two. However, people generally know how they will legislate based on their party affiliation. Thus, big money may ally with those that ally with them naturally, but would have a harder time "buying" a change of heart.

 

Askandanswer--I respect Australia, but disagree with compulsory voting. I'd rather have a smaller turn out of truly invested and engaged voters than a large turn out of people who may vote on a whim, not having followed the election.

[Guest]

Anatess, I don't like the individual/independent system you outline. You suggest it would work if they clean it up. Could it be that big-money can more easily by off an independent than a politician openly allied with a party?  A Republican politician may be able to claim conscious on a single diversion--maybe even two. However, people generally know how they will legislate based on their party affiliation. Thus, big money may ally with those that ally with them naturally, but would have a harder time "buying" a change of heart.

 

Askandanswer--I respect Australia, but disagree with compulsory voting. I'd rather have a smaller turn out of truly invested and engaged voters than a large turn out of people who may vote on a whim, not having followed the election.

 

Big money can buy off an independent, of course... but the return of that buy-off is very minimal because... the independent is not tied to anything and anybody - you're literally buying one person - very ineffective.  It is easier (and is common) to just buy the vote - go have a fiesta celebration with 5000 chickens, 50 roasted pigs, and 5 calfs... you can win that town.  Or, send 10,000 gallons of fresh water to the outlying islands if you're having a hard time winning the mainland... easy vote win... this works because of politically ignorant voters.  It's really no different than the social programs promised on American campaigns - it's just more obvious, and it's a one-time tax burden.  You fight this by winning the loyalty of the people - like my family doesn't have to campaign in the outlying islands because our lastname is reputable there.  The islands have prospered for over 40 years because of the policies by one of my family members.  So, it is more difficult for an "outsider" to buy votes.  They'll just take the water and still vote the same.

 

What's going on in the Philippines right now is election day fraud that is breaking this system - not as much campaign fraud.  For example, in our precinct, my uncle got 1 vote.  1 vote out of the entire precinct... my parents and siblings all voted in that precinct... so, it became a joke of which one of them went against the family plan to secretly electioneer against my uncle.  It's ridiculously crazy on election day over there.  Murder rate rise on election day so much so that the government tried to ban public carry of firearms - concealed or otherwise - for the week before and the week after election day.  And, of course, it didn't work.  Gun control is really the silliest thing ever - people who want to steal elections are law-breakers... why would they bother to then comply with gun law?  Silly people.

Edited January 19, 2016 by anatess

[Crypto]

Askandanswer--I respect Australia, but disagree with compulsory voting. I'd rather have a smaller turn out of truly invested and engaged voters than a large turn out of people who may vote on a whim, not having followed the election.

I think there are some as far as i'm aware, currently unverifiable assumptions. (works for both sides of the coin)

How do you know that a small segment of the population is more invested and engaged, rather than con'ed and bribed into voting a certain way, Or that a small oligarchy would better represent the whole, even if their interests were at odds with the rest?

[prisonchaplain]

Crypto, my only point was that when turn out is low (not an oligarchy, more like 19% rather than 30%) then it's generally only the more interested and engaged voters who are trudging to the booths.  Some sociologists have argued that low voter turn out, rather than suggestion disillusionment, may mean that the majority are satisfied with the status quo, and are willing to let those more interested do the voting.  Also, my goal is not that an election represent the whole.  It's simply that those willing to vote have their ballots fairly counted.

[Blackmarch]

On 1/18/2016 at 3:41 PM, prisonchaplain said:

The former leader of my denomination (they do not serve for life) preached a sermon in which he declared it a Christian duty to vote.  He said many in the church had stayed home on election day, during recent votes (I assume the last two-four presidential elections).  "Shame on you!" he said.  "If you don't know who to vote for, or don't like any of the candidates, then you get down on your knees, at your prayer altar, and you seek the direction of the Holy Spirit.  Then you vote the way he tells you to!"

 

Without going into why, this year was one in which I saw myself possibly deciding on "none of the above."  Yet, when I heard these words I felt convicted.  My elder is right.

 

Thoughts on this?  Is abstention a legitimate way of voting frustration, or is it an easy-out--a cave to cynicism?

 

 

PLEASE NO NAMING OF POTENTIAL CANDIDATES ON THIS STRING.  THAT IS AN ABSOLUTE NO-NO.   

I agree with him. Why would it be a christian duty? the Christian duty is to first and foremost do all the christ asks of us, and there are a couple big parts to that. One is that we are commanded to share his word with the world, and secondly those with his authority have to administer to the people.

A government has much power over the people, and if by luck you are under a government that allows its people to make changes to the government then a Christian is obligated to use the influence they have to make for change that will allow them to better follow Christ and his commandments.

If there is no good option, then one must know which of the bad options is going to be the least bad.... (or submit their candidacy to provide a better option for other people to vote for)

just my .02$