NationStates Jolt Archive

Over the past months, I've come to the conclusion that I would rather cut my heart out than cast a vote for Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I don't love Obama, but he's my default vote (for now, anyway, until he pisses me off as well.) In the increasingly unlikely event of a Clinton vs. McCain race, I'm wondering how to make a vote in protest. Ideas I've come up with:

Not voting. I'd rather vote for someone, though.

Casting a write-in vote for Ron Paul. I don't much like Paul, but he does speak his mind and he seems to be the ultimate "screw you" vote this year.

Casting a write-in vote for an imaginary character.

Taking a dump in the voting booth (this one might get me arrested.)

Any other ideas?

Any other ideas?

Get over it.

Get over it.

I'm sorry that I feel like protesting against the worthlessness of my possible choices in the election. Please forgive me.

Not like it matters much anyway, McCain will definitely win my state. Pretty much any gesture is futile.

Or you could follow my example and refuse to endorse the whole farce. Don't vote.

Any other ideas?

Just don't vote for Nader. We don't need another four years of hearing how he "spoiled" the election for whoever the democrat is. Spare us that, please. :p

Unless of course, you live in a state that doesn't matter. I sure do. In that case, vote for anyone you like.

not vote and go on a rant about how a 3rd party would magically make things better....

Nader perhaps? Every vote closer to 5% helps.

Vote for yourself.

But really, a single protest vote is worthless. Nobody significant will hear about it. You'll give one person a brief giggle, maybe.

I think Georgia's been solidly red since 1976, and that's not changing anytime soon, so I can vote for whoever and not have to feel any burden.

Vote for Ifreann! :eek:

Write in an imaginary or other character vote. It's always fun.

I write "Joseph Stalin" into every ballot where I hate all the options here. One of these days he might get elected.

Write in some inflammatory, bigoted, or racist statement
- OR -
Osama bin Laden

Any other ideas?
Set the voting booth on fire :)

Vote Green.

Nader perhaps? Every vote closer to 5% helps.

That's who I'm voting for. And I live in a "swing" state.

Set the voting booth on fire :)

Woohoo!

But if it's "effective", is it really a protest vote?

But if it's "effective", is it really a protest vote?

Yes. How can an effective protest vote be anything other than a protest vote?

What you're proposing is a waste of time that no one cares about.

Vote Libertarian! :D

What you're proposing is a waste of time that no one cares about.

And voting for Bowl of Shit A or Bowl of Shit B isn't a waste of time? :confused:

And voting for Bowl of Shit A or Bowl of Shit B isn't a waste of time? :confused:

Well it depends. Does someone have to eat Bowl B? If so, I'd vote for Bowl B.

Well it depends. Does someone have to eat Bowl B? If so, I'd vote for Bowl B.

lmfao

But in all seriousness, write in Colbert. Its legal. He's over 35, born in the US, and expressed interest in running. He'll take South carolina from the Republicans.

Don't vote until there are candidates with realistic philosophies.

Don't vote until there are candidates with realistic philosophies.

Translation: Never, ever, vote.

Pretty much. Not until there's a big change in the country.

When we have someone that will stand up and say for instance that torture is something we should all support and that acknowledge as being a fact of life. And that using drugs is about personal responsibility, not something the government should legislate. Or for instance that it's common sense that stem cell research should be supported, it shouldn't even be an issue.

Realism.

Or for instance that it's common sense that stem cell research should be supported, it shouldn't even be an issue.

Supported, yes.

Supported by tax payers' money, no.

Pretty much. Not until there's a big change in the country.

When we have someone that will stand up and say for instance that torture is something we should all support and that acknowledge as being a fact of life. And that using drugs is about personal responsibility, not something the government should legislate. Or for instance that it's common sense that stem cell research should be supported, it shouldn't even be an issue.

Realism.

Wow. Views swing from side to side much?

I disagree completely.

It's potential benefit to society is much more realistic than a lot of the other things that get massive funding.

Of course waste will always be the biggest problem. When you see construction workers sitting on their ass all day at the road they dug up least year and collecting overtime, you understand why nothing seems to work right.

We need to stop the war on drugs and start the war on waste.

We need to stop the war on drugs

QFT 100%.

Wow. Views swing from side to side much?

Realism doesn't follow a right or left position. It's about common sense.

What right does the government have to tell people that they can't be prostitutes or kill themselves? It's ridiculous. It's not a right or left issue, or rather it shouldn't be. It's human realism. Or even more ridiculous things like banning someone for sexual orientation from doing something. That's not realism and why I could never vote for someone like McCain.

Write in Gordon Freeman/Isaac Kleiner as President and VP.

Freeman/Kleiner '08: Raising the bar and leaving no headcrab behind.

Wow. Views swing from side to side much?

Eric doesn't conveniently fit any label. His views vary widely.

Eric doesn't conveniently fit any label. His views vary widely.

Yes, I do. I'm a realist. :)

Write in Gordon Freeman/Isaac Kleiner as President and VP.

Freeman/Kleiner '08: Raising the bar and leaving no headcrab behind.

O.o

Yes, I do. I'm a realist. :)

I meant in terms of "left" or "right."

Eric doesn't conveniently fit any label. His views vary widely.

I guess i shouldn't be taking. I'm a pro-universal heathcare,Pro Death penalty, Stongly Anti-gun control, Pro-choice, Anti-Iraq war, atheist. I'm a cross of the extremist on both sides.

I guess i shouldn't be taking. I'm a pro-universal heathcare,Pro Death penalty, Stongly Anti-gun control, Pro-choice, Anti-Iraq war, atheist. I'm a cross of the extremist on both sides.

Yes, I am all of those things. It's not extremism, it's realism.

Over the past months, I've come to the conclusion that I would rather cut my heart out than cast a vote for Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I don't love Obama, but he's my default vote (for now, anyway, until he pisses me off as well.) In the increasingly unlikely event of a Clinton vs. McCain race, I'm wondering how to make a vote in protest. Ideas I've come up with:

Not voting. I'd rather vote for someone, though.

Casting a write-in vote for Ron Paul. I don't much like Paul, but he does speak his mind and he seems to be the ultimate "screw you" vote this year.

Casting a write-in vote for an imaginary character.

Taking a dump in the voting booth (this one might get me arrested.)

Any other ideas?
Get off your ass and join a proportional rep (a FAIR voting system?? whaaaaat??) advocacy group. Then you wouldn't have to vote for someone you revile ever ever again if you didn't feel inclined to waste your vote.

Leave a burning bag of crap in the voting booth? Sounds good to me.

And voting for Bowl of Shit A or Bowl of Shit B isn't a waste of time? :confused:

It was people voting who got us the candidates we have.

Remember, they were picked by elections, not appointed by anyone.

I hear the US are inventing some new voting machines which personalize themselves to the individual voter, they promptly stop working if you are black, poor or don't vote Republicrat.

If you don't support anyone on the ballot, then don't vote. There. You protested and didn't even have to go stand in line.

If you don't support anyone on the ballot, then don't vote. There. You protested and didn't even have to go stand in line.

I can't understand why you would actually have lines when voting, I have voted twice (one state and one commonwealth) and never had to line, their were like dozens of free booths. Also, while I am on this topic, optional voting is atrocious, it dumbs down the process to the level of apathy and makes the process unauthentic and illegitimate.

I hear the US are inventing some new voting machines which personalize themselves to the individual voter, they promptly stop working if you are black, poor or don't vote Republicrat.

Better than the ones in Soviet Russia. "Vote red, or we'll kill you and your family. But no one will no, because we control the media."

Better than the ones in Soviet Russia. "Vote red, or we'll kill you and your family. But no one will no, because we control the media."

No, Soviet democracy is the combination of economic and political power of the working class, thus at local soviets representatives are elected as both from the party and industrial reps.

You obviously have no idea what you speak of as your mind is so distorted by bourgeois models of 'democracy'.

When we have someone that will stand up and say for instance that torture is something we should all support and that acknowledge as being a fact of life.

Realism.

That's not realism, that's the advocation and support of sadism.

I can't understand why you would actually have lines when voting, I have voted twice (one state and one commonwealth) and never had to line, their were like dozens of free booths. Also, while I am on this topic, optional voting is atrocious, it dumbs down the process to the level of apathy and makes the process unauthentic and illegitimate.

The only way to make voting truly a right and a freedom is to ensure that people have the option not to do it. Otherwise it becomes a farce in its own right.

That's not realism, that's the advocation and support of sadism.

Torturing someone to get information is not sadism. Sadism is taking pleasure from the pain and suffering of others. To equate that to accepting torture as a necessary evil is nonsense, much like having a prison system at all. It's not something you take pleasure from.

The only way to make voting truly a right and a freedom is to ensure that people have the option not to do it. Otherwise it becomes a farce in its own right.

That's where we differ, participation in politics (human society generally) is not a 'freedom', it's a social responsibility.

That's where we differ, participation in politics (human society generally) is not a 'freedom', it's a social responsibility.

I doubt this will be the last time we reach an impasse.

i would say take a look at everything you normally pay for. all the things and kinds of things you buy every day. and look into where the companies and people that make or supply those things, what they support or are part of. and then those that support something you oppose, find an alternate source of supply or possibly looking into living without all togather, whatever those things might happen to be.

as someone once said, the votes you cast at the cash register are the votes that are always counted.

from my own favorite soapbox i highly recomend every way you reasonably can, avoid using an automobile or putting gas in one.

where there is public trasportation or bycycle or walking or whatever you can use instead, then do so. and where there isn't, or you feel what there is just isn't adaquite to enable you to do that, then if you're inclined to participate in the political proccess more directly, lobby and organize to bring this about so that there will be.

you'll be making this world a better place for every living creature and being by doing so. including yourself and the rest of us.

=^^=
.../\...

Torturing someone to get information is not sadism. Sadism is taking pleasure from the pain and suffering of others. .

And who would do the torturing? Sadists, violent people, whether natural or made, who will take pleasure from the pain and suffering of other human beings and will inflict such pain with impunity. Such people are empowered and promoted by torture regimes, and their values pollute everything else.

To equate that to accepting torture as a necessary evil is nonsense, much like having a prison system at all. It's not something you take pleasure from.

What is nonsense is equating lawful imprisonment (and/or cases were execution is lawful and deemed necessary) with lawless violence by the security services of the State. The difference is immense; it is the difference between a night watchman and a gangster.

I think Prince is confusing reality with 24, where every hour Jack Bauer must save America from terrorists by torturing some hapless sod, and if he doesn't a nuclear weapon will explode in NYC.

That's where we differ, participation in politics (human society generally) is not a 'freedom', it's a social responsibility.There is no responsibility without freedom. Voting because you have to doesn't make you a responsible voter, on the contrary, many people just vote whatever.
Responsibility is something that should be fostered, not forced.

There is no responsibility without freedom. Voting because you have to doesn't make you a responsible voter, on the contrary, many people just vote whatever.
Responsibility is something that should be fostered, not forced.

Compulsory voting does not 'force', it simply gives the person a material incentive to vote, that they won't get fined if they vote.

Compulsory voting does not 'force', it simply gives the person a material incentive to vote, that they won't get fined if they vote.That's still force. They have no incentive to put any thought into their vote, it's merely a means for them to avoid punishment. It's merely the illusion of political participation. It's like saying that sitting in a classroom with headphones on reading a comic is participating in class. Sure they're there, but that's all.
A responsible citizenry needs to want to participate, freely, of their own accord. To achieve that they need to be convinced by argument that it is worthwhile to vote, and not by punitive measures which merely dull the will of the people.
You can force people to vote, but you can't force them to make a well-considered, meaningful choice doing it. Without that, you might as well throw a pair of dice; the result will mean as much and as little to anyone.

That’s where we differ, participation in politics (human society generally) is not a ‘freedom’, it’s a social responsibility.
To paraphrase, humans are by nature political animals. We are a social species, and to live in society one must engage, on some level, in political discourse.

However, I fail to see why participation in what some amusingly call ‘representative democracy’ is a social responsibility.

However, I fail to see why participation in what some amusingly call ‘representative democracy’ is a social responsibility.

Because of social injustice.

As a citizen, a member of the public, we are duty-bound to attempt to rectify the injustices that said public has legislated. As individuals, in our private lives, we can (to some degree) shrug our shoulders and insist that "It's not our fault", but if we refuse to participate in politics (at least by voting, and voting wisely)... well, it is.

Because of social injustice.

As a citizen, a member of the public, we are duty-bound to attempt to rectify the injustices that said public has legislated.
Even though I live in a place whereby my vote means nothing more than a symbolic gesture? Why should my attempts to rectify injustices not be expressed through more meaningful political action than a minor say every four or five years as to which set of loons will be fucking things up (if I’m lucky enough to live in a swing ward)?

Even though I live in a place whereby my vote means nothing more than a symbolic gesture?

Of course not. In that case, you have no capacity and are excused from your obligation.

Why should my attempts to rectify injustices not be expressed through more meaningful political action

Of course they should be. It's abstinence, not participation in other ways (when they are effective and meaningful), that's the problem.

Vote any of the third parties. Decide which third party to vote for by the validity of the HTML and CSS or their website.

I think I may write in Lunatic Goofballs.

Seriously, if we have a poor selection, it's our own fault. We let the parties get away with foisting miscreants, fools and worse on us and we accept this. It may be too late at this point, though. We've gone through decades of voter apathy and this is pretty much the result - a borderline moron in office and a selection ranging from dishonest to incompetent presented as his potential replacements.

The Greeks had a word for someone who wasn't interested in politics; the word translates as idiot.

The Greeks had a word for someone who wasn't interested in politics; the word translates as idiot.Yeah, well, look at them now :p
If the ancient greeks were so great, why are they all dead, eh? Well ok, two thousand years might have something to do with it

And it's a bit of a different story when you live in a polis or a nationstate. As one among thousands your vote and voice have some modicum of influence; among millions it's easy to feel irrelevant.

So, wait, can you be arrested for shitting in the voting booth?

It's probably considered defacement of public property. Now, if you hide it well enough that the next few people in don't notice...

Over the past months, I've come to the conclusion that I would rather cut my heart out than cast a vote for Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I don't love Obama, but he's my default vote (for now, anyway, until he pisses me off as well.) In the increasingly unlikely event of a Clinton vs. McCain race, I'm wondering how to make a vote in protest. Ideas I've come up with:

Not voting. I'd rather vote for someone, though.

Casting a write-in vote for Ron Paul. I don't much like Paul, but he does speak his mind and he seems to be the ultimate "screw you" vote this year.

Casting a write-in vote for an imaginary character.

Taking a dump in the voting booth (this one might get me arrested.)

Any other ideas?

Go with that one...

Compulsory voting does not 'force', it simply gives the person a material incentive to vote, that they won't get fined if they vote.

Did you even read what you wrote AP?

Compulsory voting does not 'force', it simply gives the person a material incentive to vote, that they won't get fined if they vote.That sounds nothing like compulsory voting in states you claim to admire. It sounds more like the Australian compulsory voting.