not voting isn't powerful at all. it's nothing. it would only be something if ZERO people voted. and that's impossible. spoiling your ballot is a statement. not voting is the opposite of a statement.
Explain what you mean by spoil, will you? I'm not familiar.
Ok read the other post. Here it would be deemed invalid. Therefore not counted. Also not possible the electronic voting stations. Unsure how many states still use paper
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree with the poster who said you should try to inform yourself as much as possible before you go and vote. I found this link very interesting and helpful to understand some things that the candidates stand for. Some stuff I had to ask my husband about because it was not always super easy to understand to me. I have a Master in English, but got it in Germany. After almost four years living in America, I feel like I still have lots of gaps in my knowledge, stuff that cannot be taught at university, you have to live it. But I would say I am not the stupidest cup in the cupboard. Now if I, trying to read a lot about the election and the candidates to form an opinion even if I am not allowed to vote (actually I looked it up again and I could get a penalty which could in the worst case even lead to my deportation if I do vote), am confused about certain wordings and the deeper meaning of some issues in this test, I wonder how people feel who are not used to reading a lot, checking out different sources, and forming their opinions based on memes with typos and obscure sources. It seems to me, the possible Trump voters are reactionary voters. This is not about contents or anything, it is purely emotional. And that feels dangerous.
not voting isn't powerful at all. it's nothing. it would only be something if ZERO people voted. and that's impossible. spoiling your ballot is a statement. not voting is the opposite of a statement.
Explain what you mean by spoil, will you? I'm not familiar.
Ok read the other post. Here it would be deemed invalid. Therefore not counted. Also not possible the electronic voting stations. Unsure how many states still use paper
weird. didn't know that. then they should have a "none of the above" choice.
I think spoiling your ballot does nothing except waste time and paper in the tally process. No one cares about the people that did not vote/spoil their ballot - especially the runners. If you don't vote you have no say or reason to complain what goes on in the world politically except bend over and take it. If you don't like the candidate then get out there and run yourself on the issues that matter to you. Spoiling a ballot does not send any message because its forgotten about 100times faster than it took your effort to do so. Anybody think Trump cares about spoiled ballots?
I think spoiling your ballot does nothing except waste time and paper in the tally process. No one cares about the people that did not vote/spoil their ballot - especially the runners. If you don't vote you have no say or reason to complain what goes on in the world politically except bend over and take it. If you don't like the candidate then get out there and run yourself on the issues that matter to you. Spoiling a ballot does not send any message because its forgotten about 100times faster than it took your effort to do so. Anybody think Trump cares about spoiled ballots?
spoiled ballots in canada DO count for something. they are tallied. it tells the establishment how many people are unhappy with the current crop of political choice. if more people were aware of it, and actually took the time to do it instead of thinking "Ah, there's no point in doing that", then maybe the parties would have to take a harder look at who they are appointing as their leaders.
I think spoiling your ballot does nothing except waste time and paper in the tally process. No one cares about the people that did not vote/spoil their ballot - especially the runners. If you don't vote you have no say or reason to complain what goes on in the world politically except bend over and take it. If you don't like the candidate then get out there and run yourself on the issues that matter to you. Spoiling a ballot does not send any message because its forgotten about 100times faster than it took your effort to do so. Anybody think Trump cares about spoiled ballots?
spoiled ballots in canada DO count for something. they are tallied. it tells the establishment how many people are unhappy with the current crop of political choice. if more people were aware of it, and actually took the time to do it instead of thinking "Ah, there's no point in doing that", then maybe the parties would have to take a harder look at who they are appointing as their leaders.
As long as we have a system where you win by the most votes (per se), spoiled ballots will not have an effect. It just makes it a tighter race for the few running.
I think spoiling your ballot does nothing except waste time and paper in the tally process. No one cares about the people that did not vote/spoil their ballot - especially the runners. If you don't vote you have no say or reason to complain what goes on in the world politically except bend over and take it. If you don't like the candidate then get out there and run yourself on the issues that matter to you. Spoiling a ballot does not send any message because its forgotten about 100times faster than it took your effort to do so. Anybody think Trump cares about spoiled ballots?
spoiled ballots in canada DO count for something. they are tallied. it tells the establishment how many people are unhappy with the current crop of political choice. if more people were aware of it, and actually took the time to do it instead of thinking "Ah, there's no point in doing that", then maybe the parties would have to take a harder look at who they are appointing as their leaders.
As long as we have a system where you win by the most votes (per se), spoiled ballots will not have an effect. It just makes it a tighter race for the few running.
it doesn't have an effect on the outcome, of course. that's obviously not the point.
Unless your actions effect an election outcome why bother doing them? Isn't the whole point of taking action to change things? Spoiled ballots will not change the issues runners are campaigning on. Spoiled ballots have no issues to bring forth for a runner.
Unless your actions effect an election outcome why bother doing them? Isn't the whole point of taking action to change things? Spoiled ballots will not change the issues runners are campaigning on. Spoiled ballots have no issues to bring forth for a runner.
*sigh*. spoiled ballots send a message. if enough people send said message, people up top will receive said message and act accordingly.
not voting isn't powerful at all. it's nothing. it would only be something if ZERO people voted. and that's impossible. spoiling your ballot is a statement. not voting is the opposite of a statement.
Explain what you mean by spoil, will you? I'm not familiar.
Ok read the other post. Here it would be deemed invalid. Therefore not counted. Also not possible the electronic voting stations. Unsure how many states still use paper
weird. didn't know that. then they should have a "none of the above" choice.
I had a NO PREFERENCE option on my ballot yesterday. But ballots vary from state to state.
I agree with the poster who said you should try to inform yourself as much as possible before you go and vote. I found this link very interesting and helpful to understand some things that the candidates stand for. Some stuff I had to ask my husband about because it was not always super easy to understand to me. I have a Master in English, but got it in Germany. After almost four years living in America, I feel like I still have lots of gaps in my knowledge, stuff that cannot be taught at university, you have to live it. But I would say I am not the stupidest cup in the cupboard. Now if I, trying to read a lot about the election and the candidates to form an opinion even if I am not allowed to vote (actually I looked it up again and I could get a penalty which could in the worst case even lead to my deportation if I do vote), am confused about certain wordings and the deeper meaning of some issues in this test, I wonder how people feel who are not used to reading a lot, checking out different sources, and forming their opinions based on memes with typos and obscure sources. It seems to me, the possible Trump voters are reactionary voters. This is not about contents or anything, it is purely emotional. And that feels dangerous.
I hate to break it to you hun but that's just 100% true of all people even eligible to vote. Most people don't care and don't keep up with all the information. Thanks for the link - I did the WHOLE thing (skipping a few questions I have no business trying to answer since I know nothing about the subject) and the response I got is startling. 97% with Bernie which isn't surprising. 96% with Jill Stein who I've never even heard of 92% with Hilary which is surprising but the absolute shocker - 77% with Michael Bloomberg. Now THAT is disturbing.
Voting is a way of mitigating damages. If you can't be bothered to get off your arse and cast a ballot you're implicitly supporting both parties doing whatever they please. If you find both choices so reprehensible that you can't in good conscience cast a ballot, spoil it instead. It at least denotes frustration over apathy.
Most Western countries aren't truly democratic but the alternative is much worse. If you can't be bothered to vote don't be surprised when you lose the right to do it. Choosing the lessor of two evils is still favourable to having no choice at all.
Can it be made clear that most of the people talking about not voting aren't talking about NOT VOTING but about abstaining from certain issues or candidates, whatever the reason?
Can it be made clear that most of the people talking about not voting aren't talking about NOT VOTING but about abstaining from certain issues or candidates, whatever the reason?
How some can't see this is beyond me.
***no edit, either!
There is a clear distinction between spoiling your ballot and not voting altogether. You can choose to ignore that distinction but it doesn't mean it isn't there. Spoiling a ballot indicates your disapproval of both candidates whereas choosing to not cast a vote suggests voter apathy and demonstrates to candidates that they don't need to do anything to win you or others over.
As for edits, I don't give a rat's ass about edits. If I make a typo while writing on my phone I'll change it; period.
More than 11,000 people in Massachusetts marked their ballots NO PREFERENCE last Tuesday.
I just don't see why anyone could literally not be able to choose one over the others. Even if they all suck but one is only 1% better than the rest ... why not vote for that person rather than no one? It's not lie spoiling a ballot changes anything as far as how politics work. I don't think there is any point to that particular statement of protest. So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
More than 11,000 people in Massachusetts marked their ballots NO PREFERENCE last Tuesday.
I just don't see why anyone could literally not be able to choose one over the others. Even if they all suck but one is only 1% better than the rest ... why not vote for that person rather than no one? It's not lie spoiling a ballot changes anything as far as how politics work. I don't think there is any point to that particular statement of protest. So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
I completely agree. There is no progress to be gained from spoiling. 11,000 does send a message, but it's a message that will never, ever get through to enact change.
More than 11,000 people in Massachusetts marked their ballots NO PREFERENCE last Tuesday.
I just don't see why anyone could literally not be able to choose one over the others. Even if they all suck but one is only 1% better than the rest ... why not vote for that person rather than no one? It's not lie spoiling a ballot changes anything as far as how politics work. I don't think there is any point to that particular statement of protest. So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
I'll tell ya how and why... For example: If one candidate is an obdurate racist and the other is an unyielding sexist pig, I cannot support either type of thinking, so... fuck em both!
More than 11,000 people in Massachusetts marked their ballots NO PREFERENCE last Tuesday.
I just don't see why anyone could literally not be able to choose one over the others. Even if they all suck but one is only 1% better than the rest ... why not vote for that person rather than no one? It's not lie spoiling a ballot changes anything as far as how politics work. I don't think there is any point to that particular statement of protest. So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
I'll tell ya how and why... For example: If one candidate is an obdurate racist and the other is an unyielding sexist pig, I cannot support either type of thinking, so... fuck em both!
This is basically how I feel. I'd rather write in a name of someone I believe in than "no preference" though. I don't like the feeling of choosing the lesser of two evils, which most elections tend to be.
More than 11,000 people in Massachusetts marked their ballots NO PREFERENCE last Tuesday.
I just don't see why anyone could literally not be able to choose one over the others. Even if they all suck but one is only 1% better than the rest ... why not vote for that person rather than no one? It's not lie spoiling a ballot changes anything as far as how politics work. I don't think there is any point to that particular statement of protest. So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
I'll tell ya how and why... For example: If one candidate is an obdurate racist and the other is an unyielding sexist pig, I cannot support either type of thinking, so... fuck em both!
This is basically how I feel. I'd rather write in a name of someone I believe in than "no preference" though. I don't like the feeling of choosing the lesser of two evils, which most elections tend to be.
That's fine for you as long as you are fine with the greater evil getting elected.
More than 11,000 people in Massachusetts marked their ballots NO PREFERENCE last Tuesday.
I just don't see why anyone could literally not be able to choose one over the others. Even if they all suck but one is only 1% better than the rest ... why not vote for that person rather than no one? It's not lie spoiling a ballot changes anything as far as how politics work. I don't think there is any point to that particular statement of protest. So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
I'll tell ya how and why... For example: If one candidate is an obdurate racist and the other is an unyielding sexist pig, I cannot support either type of thinking, so... fuck em both!
This is basically how I feel. I'd rather write in a name of someone I believe in than "no preference" though. I don't like the feeling of choosing the lesser of two evils, which most elections tend to be.
That's fine as long as you are fine with the greater evil!
It really depends.
In the case of George W. Bush running, I definitely vote for the other guy, and did.
More than 11,000 people in Massachusetts marked their ballots NO PREFERENCE last Tuesday.
I just don't see why anyone could literally not be able to choose one over the others. Even if they all suck but one is only 1% better than the rest ... why not vote for that person rather than no one? It's not lie spoiling a ballot changes anything as far as how politics work. I don't think there is any point to that particular statement of protest. So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
I completely agree. There is no progress to be gained from spoiling. 11,000 does send a message, but it's a message that will never, ever get through to enact change.
More than 11,000 people in Massachusetts marked their ballots NO PREFERENCE last Tuesday.
I just don't see why anyone could literally not be able to choose one over the others. Even if they all suck but one is only 1% better than the rest ... why not vote for that person rather than no one? It's not lie spoiling a ballot changes anything as far as how politics work. I don't think there is any point to that particular statement of protest. So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
I'll tell ya how and why... For example: If one candidate is an obdurate racist and the other is an unyielding sexist pig, I cannot support either type of thinking, so... fuck em both!
This is basically how I feel. I'd rather write in a name of someone I believe in than "no preference" though. I don't like the feeling of choosing the lesser of two evils, which most elections tend to be.
That's fine as long as you are fine with the greater evil!
It really depends.
In the case of George W. Bush running, I definitely vote for the other guy, and did.
I guess that is my point, we have such a stark divide politically that the difference in evils (by opinion) will always be large.
More than 11,000 people in Massachusetts marked their ballots NO PREFERENCE last Tuesday.
I just don't see why anyone could literally not be able to choose one over the others. Even if they all suck but one is only 1% better than the rest ... why not vote for that person rather than no one? It's not lie spoiling a ballot changes anything as far as how politics work. I don't think there is any point to that particular statement of protest. So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
I'll tell ya how and why... For example: If one candidate is an obdurate racist and the other is an unyielding sexist pig, I cannot support either type of thinking, so... fuck em both!
This is basically how I feel. I'd rather write in a name of someone I believe in than "no preference" though. I don't like the feeling of choosing the lesser of two evils, which most elections tend to be.
Agreed. If you can do a write-in, or if there is a third (fourth, fifth, etc) option, I will opt for one of those choices. For instance, in the 2000 election, I did not want either Bush or Gore. Roseanne Barr was an official write-in on Maryland's ballot, so I wrote her in. I figured she couldn't do any worse running the country than she did singing its anthem.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
Ok read the other post. Here it would be deemed invalid. Therefore not counted. Also not possible the electronic voting stations. Unsure how many states still use paper
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Here is the link:
https://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz
(My top 2 were Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein.)
www.headstonesband.com
No one cares about the people that did not vote/spoil their ballot - especially the runners.
If you don't vote you have no say or reason to complain what goes on in the world politically except bend over and take it.
If you don't like the candidate then get out there and run yourself on the issues that matter to you.
Spoiling a ballot does not send any message because its forgotten about 100times faster than it took your effort to do so.
Anybody think Trump cares about spoiled ballots?
www.headstonesband.com
It just makes it a tighter race for the few running.
www.headstonesband.com
Isn't the whole point of taking action to change things?
Spoiled ballots will not change the issues runners are campaigning on.
Spoiled ballots have no issues to bring forth for a runner.
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Thanks for the link - I did the WHOLE thing (skipping a few questions I have no business trying to answer since I know nothing about the subject) and the response I got is startling.
97% with Bernie which isn't surprising.
96% with Jill Stein who I've never even heard of
92% with Hilary which is surprising
but the absolute shocker -
77% with Michael Bloomberg. Now THAT is disturbing.
LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
Most Western countries aren't truly democratic but the alternative is much worse. If you can't be bothered to vote don't be surprised when you lose the right to do it. Choosing the lessor of two evils is still favourable to having no choice at all.
How some can't see this is beyond me.
***no edit, either!
As for edits, I don't give a rat's ass about edits. If I make a typo while writing on my phone I'll change it; period.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
So I guess back to my original statement of always voting being the logical thing to do.
11,000 does send a message, but it's a message that will never, ever get through to enact change.
If one candidate is an obdurate racist and the other is an unyielding sexist pig, I cannot support either type of thinking, so... fuck em both!
In the case of George W. Bush running, I definitely vote for the other guy, and did.
www.headstonesband.com
For instance, in the 2000 election, I did not want either Bush or Gore. Roseanne Barr was an official write-in on Maryland's ballot, so I wrote her in. I figured she couldn't do any worse running the country than she did singing its anthem.