Non-Voters Have No Right to Complain? Hogwash!

I agree. Especially with the people who are running for office. Sometimes it come down to voting for the lesser of two evils and that is not a way to run a country

Thanks John.

How come I missed this. John and I are of the same opinion.

The perception some have is like, there's a fire burning and my only two choices are whether to put gasoline or diesel on it.

Oh, someone is offering an alternative. They have sawdust that I can use if I prefer.

1. "We're all paying taxes and being restricted and controlled and otherwise having our rights violated." We're having our rights protected by the government far more than having rights violated.
2. "if you play the game, you're consenting to the rules, right?" If by "rules" you mean "laws", either you consent or you're a criminal.
3. "Look at the candidates, too: often they are not very different on major issues." To which planet are you referring?"

Elected officials have an obligation to make decisions which are in the best interests of the country and its citizens. Eligible citizens have an obligation to vote. If an eligible citizen does not exercise his or her obligation to vote, he or she has less grounds for holding elected officials to their obligations than do those who do their civic duty. Likewise, those who use subterfuge to escape jury duty are not in a very solid position to criticize the courts.

I don't feel like we are OBLIGATED to vote, but sometimes it can make a difference in how matters will be dealt with. Unfortunately, most of the time it doesn't seem to matter and those who get in power seem to care less about what voters and taxpayers think.

We MUST vote locally for control of what is happening in our counties and state. We vote representatives go DC to support our views and opinions but we MUST follow their votes. DC changes good, honest people who want to do the right thing. Intimidation, threats, blackmail, backroom voting deals, and on and on, thus they get control of our representatives.
@John Beck
Either you don't follow politics, voting records, or understand what is going on in this country, or are just naive to THINK the Reps & Dems are different in their overall voting records. Oh, they TALK a good game, but then vote the same, and every time they agree, we loose another freedom.

I won't get roped into personal attacks and insults, Linda. I'll just say that the voting records I've seen, particularly on votes which are not passed, are distinctly different. Of course, when a measure passes, by definition a majority will have voted the same way.

John,

We're having our rights protected by the government far more than having rights violated.

Perhaps rights means something else to you. I'm a proponent of natural rights, as explained here.

If by "rules" you mean "laws", either you consent or you're a criminal.

I don't mean law, I mean the system, the state, as it exists today. Of course, law is required, though we likely have different views on which law(s).

To which planet are you referring?

Earth, USA.

Mainstream Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to have troops everywhere policing the world, having the federal government spending trillions of dollars every year, restricting our liberties through things like the TSA, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, drones, etc; restricting our economic, trading, and association liberties through countless regulations, price controls, taxes, fiat money and subsidies; need I mention more? Most all of the issues important to me, the two parties are essentially the same.

If an eligible citizen does not exercise his or her obligation to vote, he or she has less grounds for holding elected officials to their obligations than do those who do their civic duty.

I would agree we should do something, whether or not it includes voting; apathy and ignorance is wrong. I do not agree non-voters have less grounds to "complain". They are taxpayers and forced to obey whatever the government demands just like voters. The forced association, not voting itself, is why we all have equal grounds to complain.

Not voting when there is a worthy candidate may reduce one's grounds to complain, only to the degree that such a person's vote would have made a difference. Which, if we are honest, we all know it's next to nil at best.

Thought provoking.

Matthew, I cannot agree with number 2, except for those who are used by others and bloc vote. if they do not take the time to know the candidates and vote wisely. Less right to complain because you don't invest the time to cast the best vote you can. Better you stay home if you are serving some special interest, even your own. Protest vote and abstention are silly exercises. The point of voting is to know what the best choice is, and try to insure the election of the best which is possible. Early attempts ro introduce a new candidate are fine, but in the end, the one closest must be selected, who can win. Otherwise, you just leave the election open to the worse person, which is never the right choice. Your decision to step out of the process, is irresponsible, unless you are so torn or uninformed that you could make the wrong choice.

Thanks, Char. Just in case you didn't see my reply on Terry's post, I'm not saying don't vote; I plan to vote this year. But I'm realistic about voting, and have a big problem with that platitude...

Less right to complain because you don't invest the time to cast the best vote you can.

I mentioned this to John above, I would agree apathy and ignorance is wrong, but our forced association with government gives us all grounds to complain, not the act of voting.

Not voting when there is a worthy candidate may reduce one's grounds to complain, only to the degree that such a person's vote would have made a difference. Which, if we are honest, we all know it's next to nil at best.

Otherwise, you just leave the election open to the worse person, which is never the right choice.

The classic lesser of two evils argument. This keeps us in line no matter how many times politicians betray and fail us. Isn't there a point when such votes support evil more than they restrict it?

I agree not voting is better than voting ignorantly, because of a party or someone else's say so. That is the only time, truly, those who do not know which one is better SHOULD stay home.

The forced relationship gives you grounds to gripe about the conditions, but not the way they got there. You can't know enough to even discuss that if you don't vote. Period, if you knew you should vote, Period.

At no point is the lessor of evils not worth the vote, period. I am convinced a NO Vote protest is not an option! Especially if you have a valid reason the worse candidate is worse.

How can we counter the reward we give to betrayals and failures, if we are always ready to vote lesser of two evils? That's what Americans have done for decades, is it working?

Is it better to have no say at all, and let them totally have their way with us? If we aren't willing to vote, the candidates and the legislation would only be responsive to protests, is that what you want?

We should not be quiet, I agree. I think the lesser of two evils argument is convincing to a point, but it can also end up working against us.

Don't you see some problems with rewarding betrayals and poor quality, though?

It is self defense to choose less harm.

I'll remember that when they offer me arsenic laced broccoli or arsenic laced asparagus in the camps. Since I hate broccoli, it will be self-dense to choose the asparagus that I love so much more. When I die I'll think of how you saved me, Char.

It seems the question is whether there actually is a lesser of two evils. In Sue's example, no, not really, except for taste, which is meaningless.

And in too many elections, no, not really, except for- again- meaningless items.

You raise some interesting points of which you will receive some interesting comments both supportive and in disagreement. This type of post is the hardest to write even though you get a fair number of comments you will receive some personal attacks not focusing on your points that you make in your post. Keep one thing in mind when that happens these attacks are done because personal attacks are easier to make than well thought out comments on the other side. Be true to your beliefs but do not be afraid to look at all thoughts honestly. The most difficult people for me to understand are not the kinds of people are not ones who feel strongly left or right but ones who cannot feel strongly about either side, who are in fact wishy washy.

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with being a moderate. How can I possibly accept the right when I'm pro-choice and pro-gay marriage? How can I possibly accept the left when I believe in smaller government and empowerment over entitlement? I am not a wishy-washy person and I actually take pride in the fact that I am able to look at both sides to make up my own mind and not parrot what others tell me to say and feel or else!
The fact of the matter is both sides represent extremism and we wonder why we're so polarized?

I'm with you, Deborah. The parties have become so polarized. I would love to have a "Chinese menu" where I could vote for the liberal policies I support and for the conservative issues in which I believe.

I am with you both John and Deborah.

Deborah makes a great point!

Thanks Kevin.

The most difficult people for me to understand are not the kinds of people are not ones who feel strongly left or right but ones who cannot feel strongly about either side, who are in fact wishy washy.

I think you mean those who cannot bring themselves to care, that are "wishy-washy", etc; not those who may be more independent and agree with some ideas from different sides.

That is what I mean.

I LIKE this post, Matthew - thanks for the thought provoking points.

Thanks Linda!

There's always the option, if you are unhappy with the candidates, to become a candidate. But to consciously choose not to vote is absurd and two words come immediately to mind -- laziness and apathy. But we're living in an era of playing the victim and by not voting one can somehow feel justified that they are somehow being persecuted by "the system". There's places in the world where people put their lives on the line to vote, and many more where voting isn't even an option.

Deborah I very much like your response to Matthew. It is well reasoned and well written.

". . . to consciously choose not to vote is absurd and two words come immediately to mind -- laziness and apathy."

Not necessarily absurd especially since it is not always as a result of laziness or apathy. The most common reason I come across among those around me who don't even bother to get registered to vote is disgust.

What they describe to me is this: To improve ones chances at the polls, the politician must lie, cheat and pull the wool over voters eyes. The honest, decent, trustworthy ones get eliminated almost every time. Here's an American example:

George W Bush's opponent put the interest of the country over his personal political ambitions and refused to challenge the official result. The best candidate is the one who puts the people's interest above his own, but such persons will almost always be eliminated by the electoral process. That has happened several times in Jamaican politics; our last election had one example.

The regular abstainers are not necessarily lazy, apathetic nor "playing the victim". Their non-participation does not make them feel justified that they are somehow being persecuted by "the system". Their consciences simply will not allow them to be partly responsible of putting in office a person they are convinced is dishonest and puts for his/her interests above that of the country. And I am not talking about those who abstain for religious reasons.

Thanks for commenting, Deborah. Running for office is an option for some people, but typically never an option for high offices.

But to consciously choose not to vote is absurd and two words come immediately to mind -- laziness and apathy.

Could be. Laziness and apathy is wrong. But some people might not vote for very legitimate reasons- such as finding all the options unacceptable, or believing that consent and legitimacy voting might bestow on the system is more harmful than any benefits of voting.

There's places in the world where people put their lives on the line to vote, and many more where voting isn't even an option.

I'd like to say voting may be a good thing to have but it should not be conflated with freedom. I'd rather live under a monarchy with more liberties than a democracy with less liberties.

Could not have made a better response no matter how hard I tried Matthew.

Matthew, Do you think anything will undermine the legitimacy more than the AJ using Federal power to make sure illegal voters are allowed to vote by undermining attempts to remove them by refusing to compare the HS database for over 9months now, while suing the states for trying to even find out WHO is actually casting the votes????

In these days, you really believe increasing the watering down of votes, by refraining in protest is EVER a good option? Just can't be, one is always worse in experience, honesty, character, knowledge, SOMETHING!

Char, no, that's not what I think! In fact, I'm not sure what I said that prompted that?

BTW I have not followed the voter fraud issue, so I don't have an opinion on that ;) Of course, any fraud needs to be dealt with.

What I am saying is, sometimes it is worth it to vote AGAINST a candidate with legitimate cause. The fraud, the leaks, the selective prosecutions, a disaster.

Free speech say we all have a right to complain. That is, the government has no right to prevent our complaining.

But if a citizen does nothing to promote good government and does nothing to prevent bad government, then that citizen is not doing his/her duty as a citizen and letting everyone else down. It's like not helping to put out fires in other people's houses and then complaining because others don't help when his house catches fire.

So for those who refuse to do anything to help others the complaining sounds like the whining and crying of a spoiled brat.

There is another opinion some non-voters have. My dad used to be a staunch supporter of our PNP, but there came a time when he stopped voting because either choice would have been wrong in his opinion.

"It's like not helping to put out fires in other people's houses and then complaining because others don't help when his house catches fire."

To my father, during the time he stopped voting, it was like having only gasoline to fight the fires that kept coming up.

Then vote for the guy who will do the least damage. Newcomers are less powerful than those already in power. It also says "I don't like what's happening."

That is what has been encouraged here Larry, (choose the lesser of the two evils) but it still does not change the consciences of most of the consistently non-voting public.

Thanks Larry, I agree we should do something, and not doing so is like whining. However... I also think whenever our rights our violated, we are justified in complaining.

Those who promote "If you don't vote, don't complain" probably aren't challenging free speech, but the grounds for complaining.

Matthew,

Complaining with action is good. Complaining is good on its own but not as good. We heed to hear about problems. But even more we need people working on solutions.

One not so popular politician had a favorite response, "Stop telling me about problems, give me solutions."

Dennis,

You have probably noticed the response an actual solution gets by the response of folks here on gather to my proposals. Without even knowing what I propose they label me and reject even the possibility that I might be right. I might as well tell a fat person to stop drinking sweet drinks and eating sugar.

purr! komment kitty was here

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! That needed to be drummed into people's heads.

You should get a lot of flack from this though:

"Those who do vote, especially for the major parties- that's nearly everyone- might actually have less right to complain."

But not from me. I have no opinion on that part of the issue.

Thanks, Dennis!

Take out the thing about republicans and democrats, and it could apply anywhere around the world:

Those who do vote might actually have less right to complain. After all, if you play the game, you're consenting to the rules, right? You still have a right to complain (see point one) but it seems like you have less grounds for doing so than if you either abstain from voting or cast protest votes.

I agree 100%.

75% and more even "agreed" to get into war with Iraq. And the 25% others, the minority, keeps its right to complain.

Sometimes the minority can be right. Would any one suggest that they should not complain?

In a democracy the minority complies with the decision of the majority ... even if such majority is wrong. It is not the minority which raises taxes.

The problem is when someone tries to strip people from their voting RIGHTS as you suggest.

Thanks Gilbert.

Gilbert, The right to complain is not tied to winning by any means, I agree. I know if that was true, then all those who didn't vote for President Obama would not be able to gripe now! Looks like there are a lot who were in the minority last time, because there sure is a lot of complaining going on!

When expectations are not met there is disappointment. However the expectations are often very specific or the fruit of some exaggerate propaganda.

In the case of Obama, many expected jobs (improving but rather slowly); foreign policy (ending wars from one day to another); fighting terrorisms; improving wages and economy.

Indeed, he promises that he would be able to achieve all these "expectations" but it was really naive to believe that correcting practically 5 years of wars could be done so easily.

It was as well naive o believe that the Iraqi war would end after 60 days when only 7% of the Iraqi people were calling for such an interference.

Why people need expectations for being disappointed, is another question; but no expectations = not being elected.

If we are naive, this is not the fault of who wants the power; if we feel that we can get out of Iraq the same way we went in, this is stupid. If one believes that a budget deficit can be repaired and the trend corrected in matter of years, is an expectation of a novice. Usually, in gross, when there is willingness for repair, any deficit implies at the least twice the period for starting the repair.

Noticeable is the fact that the deficit started to climb with Reagan, declined with Clinton and climbed again with GWB and BO.

However, Clinton avoided wars ....

I certainly never expected instant change. Why I am griping is the way the administration was handled. the all encompassing executive orders, the attempts to interfere with states knowing who was voting I. Their elections, the problems with the NBP at the polls being ignored. He has also taken too much leeway in syphoning money to nations which is not in our best interest, released our secrets... I could go on and on, but my expectations were normal and his actions were not, IMHO. I do not feel his first loyalty is to ALL the people of the US. Period.

Interesting discussion everyone!

Thanks Darin for checking in!

Yes and no. If someone is young and hasn't had time to research candidates, then I would much prefer that they stay home. But recently I spoke with a 70 year old man who proudly proclaims that he has not voted - locally or nationally - for 50 years. He doesn't seem get what Linda said above about the importance of local elections. Think about the strides our conservative governors are making at this point...

Thanks Marilyn. I wonder what the man's reasoning was?

I agree if people don't want to cast informed votes they probably should not vote.

It might be better, of course, if there were a provision on the ballot to allow the voters to vote for none of the offered candidates as a protest to them all.

As it is, when a political official is elected, s/he claims victory for ALL their political stances, when in reality, most people only can vote for the candidate that represents them most closely (or against the one that has a poor match).

Suppose you vote for Romney, because you believe in his economic programs. That does not mean you agree with his stance on abortion, but he will nevertheless be as ardent in stating the vote for him was as much for that as anything.

Because you cannot vote for issues and stances, only people.

You can write in a vote/candidate... I've voted for my wife before when I just couldn't bring myself to select one.

In most cases, the write-in is merely discarded unless a candidate has filed to be a "write-in candidate."

It is theoretically possible that a write-in candidate could win most of the votes in an election and not be the winner, if the person never declared themselves to be a candidate at all.

Well, I'm not sure of that process here, but was really relating that to your thoughts on selecting "none" above... that was my statement of none of the above, my protest so to say. I of course didn't think she would win, LOL.

I agree Yevgeni.

There is also the matter of giving the voters the actual choice. If there was a "None of these" on the ballot, it would draw more attention than a write in of "No One" or any similar write-in actions.

What would happen if "None of these" won?

.

Nice one, Vic! Yevgeni, there have been interesting proposals, one of which- I think- said that if "None of these" won the election, another election would be held.

The problem would arise if "None" kept winning. The expense of running multiple elections would eventually end the concept.

Yevgeni,

"It might be better, of course, if there were a provision on the ballot to allow the voters to vote for none of the offered candidates as a protest to them all."

I agree, and I think it ought to be mandatory (especially in the case of the Presidency) to report those votes right along along with the rest, so people can actively express their displeasure with the system/Parties, and to dispel the notion that someone who got like a quarter of the eligible voters to check their box, has a "mandate" of some sort from the citizenry at large to do whatever the hell they want. As though we were voting for a King or holyman or something . .

John:

ABSOLUTELY!

I am tired of elected officials declaring they have a "mandate" when all they have is the fact they were the better of two bad choices.

Ditto!

Of course people have a "right" to complain, but there just might be less to complain about if more got involved. On a point I've had with family before, they might say they hate politics so they didn't vote... they're all crooked. Well OK, perhaps they are, but there is usually a heck of a lot more going on besides the Prez or whatever on the ballot to decide; you can always leave that blank. Tax issues, school bonds, local laws, zoning issues, water quality, a new park, jobs, etc. etc.... do you care about those I ask...? People tend to blow off local elections more than national it often seems, but they are probably more important in their day to day lives.

Thanks John, good points. Even though I'm a politics geek I have a lot in common with those who hate politics and the corruption. If I got my way, we would go the free market, natural rights route and politics would fade away into something irrelevant or non-existent. As it stands, though, we can't ignore politics, because it won't leave us alone.

I absolutely agree with you John. I personally feel pretty helpless about higher government and even feel a bit invisible, even at a congressional level but local? Local politics affects us all more much more directly than any other level of government and we're lucky to get a 20% voter turnout. This year will be higher only because it's a general election. Good points!!!

*much more

It's an old wives' tale is what it is. I think #2 explains very well.

It sort of reminds me of people who go to church on Sundays and holidays as if they did their duty to God and can forget about Him until the next Sunday or holiday. There is far more to having a say in government than casting a vote for a candidate because he's one of two candidates for which you have a real choice.

If you're going to offer me two different foods laced with arsenic, don't tell me it's my fault I starved to death because I refused both of them.

Thanks Sue! Good analogies.

I'm grateful I live in a country where we are free to express our opinions.

Yes, me too.

Of course, people who do not vote have a right to complain. They also have a right to look like fools in any other way they wish.

Are you calling non-voters fools?

Did you connect those dots all by yourself?

LOL. You wouldn't believe how many times such clarification is needed. Or maybe you would.

At any rate, I can respect a number of reasons some put forward for not voting. Not all of them are fools.

I believe that all Americans eligible to vote should do just that. Between them not getting involved and Republicans doing everything in their power to disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters, our Democracy is at stake.

Thanks for checking in, Lloyd!

Democracy..."A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them." We are not a democracy, as we do not have true representation, and have not for the last fifty years...Since the same definition applies to the word, "Republic" we are not a republic, in the true sense of the word. We have strayed from both the definitions simply because our elected officials represent themselves and their personal and political agendas. The people are merely an afterthought. Democracy and Republic are merely titles, and neither represent the core of America, as it is today.

What was once a republic has been lost to democracy which is hardly democracy in some ways, as you point out... Thanks.

That is it, my friend...We no longer have true representation which is required in order to consider using either label...