spit in the ocean !

[SHOOTALL]

Would some one explain the rationale of not voting in the presidential election ?
Ok your dog fell out of the fight , sorry pick a new dog !
Lesser of two evils , this sounds good until you realize that the less we vote the more power we give up , which only caters to those that wish to run our govt. for their personal gain .
It seems to me we are hearing alot say if i can't have it my way i won't play ! that's a dangerous game plan as it only gives up !
consider that getting part of what you want is better than none !
when we call a cop we don't ask his religion , color etc. or a solider ,or a doctor in an emg. and they have more personal contact than any elected official  ,
as a voter in this day and time , one interested in the 2nd amn. it would seem prudent to protect the Supreme Court !
and its Honorable Membership !
No my vote will be more than spitting in the ocean !

[Dixie Dude]

Amen Shootall.  My man didn't win either.  We do have to keep things to the right of center as much as possible.  Hopefully in time, the pendulum will swing to the right again and we will get another Ronald Reagan.  If we all just give up and stay home, it can and will get really bad.  I liked Ross Perot, but I knew his votes would ultimately have gone to the Republican candidates and we would not have had the Klintons.  I think some of it boils down to we need to take back the school system, and teach the kids the truth about our country and socialism. 

[Guy Pike]

Dixie Dude, you've nailed it! Take back the homes and the schools and we can start to improve the quality of life almost instantly. Two teenagers in this house and they don't like my way but by Christ they do it!

[ms]

   http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

[Cheesehead]

I think a person is going to have to pick one or two issues that are the most important and go with that, unfortunately the rest will have to be a compromise.

Cheese

[SHOOTALL]

Ain't it always ?

[beemanbeme]

I think we have the technology to go to a truely "one man, one vote" system. Trash the electoral college. Also, I believe we need to make it mandatory for every person with a W2 in the USA to vote. Despite what they say whilst on the stump, that is something the pols don't want to happen. The fewer people that vote, the fewer they have to swing and the fewer single issue groups they have to toady to. It is scary when you realize that a bus load of PETA freaks can swing an election but it has happened.

[SHOOTALL]

so you would give up the right to vote ? if it is mandatory it is no longer a right and at some time could be eliminated altogether !
the system we have is not perfect ( no system is ) but it has stood the test of time . For one thing the city people have a hard time voting out say hand guns etc. Consider that people in most  cities have little need for things country folks hold near and dear ! and cities hold most of the votes if we went to a one vote per voter !
you also assume that most would vote like you and that is a gamble !

[Dee]

so you would give up the right to vote ? if it is mandatory it is no longer a right and at some time could be eliminated altogether !
the system we have is not perfect ( no system is ) but it has stood the test of time . For one thing the city people have a hard time voting out say hand guns etc. Consider that people in most  cities have little need for things country folks hold near and dear ! and cities hold most of the votes if we went to a one vote per voter !
you also assume that most would vote like you and that is a gamble !

That is exactly right SHOOTALL!
I have spent a little time in every major city in the lower 48, with the exception of New York City. They DO NOT see things the way we see them. One man, one vote? That my friend is a very BAD IDEA. We would be a socialist republic within 4 years.
Mandatory voting. I know a lot of folks out there, that I would prefer they DIDN'T VOTE. To FORCE THEM TO VOTE, would only give them incentive to vote opposite of what is good for the country, because they being forced into doing something they do not hold any regard for. The key is stepping out side the D.C. monopoly, and supporting candidates that support the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That in itself seems an impossible task.

[rockbilly]

One of the major reasons I vote is to support a candidate of choice, but secondly, in my opinion, those that don't vote have to right to criticize government, elected officials, or government programs.

If you want the right to praise, or bad mouth government....VOTE!

[Fazak]

If you vote, don't gripe

[SHOOTALL]

we have the right to criticize the govt. , we can question the actions taken .
But to feel the right to BAD MOUTH is little more than bad mouthing ourselves as we are governed by we the people !
The more i read these sites the more i see that many a 12th. grade govt. teacher didn't get the job done !

[deltecs]

Regardless of my personal opinion on voter ethics or who and what they would vote for, it is still up to the people to decide by vote the policies and actions of government.  However, if that government fails to enforce equity under law, ignore fundamental rights, disregard the rights of the individual above the power of society or political correctness; it is our duty and responsibility to overthrow such government. 

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

  This directly from the Declaration of Independence indicates that we as a people not ony have the right to vote, but the duty to vote as citizens.  The power of our vote is just as important as our means to enforce it.  We allow our elected officials to be determined by special interest powers, when we do not vote as a people.  Is it no wonder then, that elections are determined by only 25% of the potential voting population?  These are the people who see it as their duty to change the existing government to closer alignment with their ideology.  The silent 75% are either satisfied with the status quo, or too complacent to vote.  These changes have brought our government to liberal policies not inline with Constitutional law.  If we want this type of government to continue toward socialism, don't vote.  If you want to see constructionist judges and literal interpretation with equal application of law, go vote for this change.  Don't throw your power away.

[SHOOTALL]

yes and our system is set up to change govt. at the polling site not the battle field !

[Graybeard]

Well it was ONCE UPON A TIME at least. These days I'm not so sure. There are so many voting fraud scams found you know they have to be only the tip of the iceberg. I'm not so sure how we vote matters any more. Most places have gone to electronic voting machines and those can be set up to deliver any result the folks in power want delivered and can be tampered with and hacked to no end.

It's gotten to the point where I don't think how we vote has much bearing on how the results show we voted. No I don't trust the folks running this country not even a little bit. They are rotten to the core.

[beemanbeme]

I don't see how making voting mandatory is giving up my vote?  And whether or not the folks that live in NYC vote like I do isn't at issue.  My whole point of making voting mandatory is to avoid having the poll places controlled by small groups of single issue people.  The politicians would have to develop platforms and plans that would appeal to a broads spectrum of people not just a few special interest groups. Also, if voting was mandatory, the voters might/would take more interest in the real substance of the candidates that were running. In conjunction with the elimination of the electoral college, the idea that their vote did indeed count might just revitalize voter interest. It's pretty obvious that the system as it exist now isn't working.

[SHOOTALL]

so you want to stop being a federalist govt. and become a true democracy ? with out the checks and blances ?

[beemanbeme]

I think of voting as a obligation more than a right. I do like the idea of a "none of the above" option.  At which time, the party would have, say, 30 days to prepare a substitute slate for campaigning and voting.

By the way, Dee, why don't you give us a profile of which United States citizens you would deprive of their right to vote?    I think everyone knows that the broader your data base, the more data input, the more diverse your data base, the more likely your outcoming information is going to be correct.  Unless you're really interested in outcome driven research or outcome driven polls. Or elections.

[SHOOTALL]

our fore fathers were smart enough to see the danger !
the fear is the lack of education or lack of commitment to get good information to base a vote . would more dead beats really improve the system ? the down fall of a political system is when the voters find a way to vote themselves advantages at the cost of others , it appears that happens to some degree here today , could you imagine what would happen if we all voted ? where would all the money come from to fulfill all the pork barrel projects that would get passed !

[Questor]

Is my vote spitting in the ocean? I don't think so. Maybe projectile vomiting and defecating in it, but certainly not spitting in it.

[beemanbeme]

Shootall, that is exactly the problem now. Your Adam Clayton Powells (he's dead)  and Robert Byrds that are elected by a constituancy that doesn't care about any sort of fiscal responsibility.  Because they don't have to pay for it.  They can run on a platform of more free stuff and someone else is gonna pay for it.  What do you think Hillary is doing right now?
The wage earners in the United States feel overwhelmed and helpless by this river of pork flowing from their pockets into the inner cities that refuse to help themselves and this mountainous ghetto where I live --fourth generation welfare families and still counting-- and the like. Removing this rediculous electoral college and putting the working people of America directly in touch with the process would help revitilize our country. The polititians would have to be accountable to 100% of their constituants not just 10% or 12% or whatever it took to get elected because of the poor voter turn out.  If a elected politition knew he was really being watched he would be much less inclined to crawl in bed with a buddy and okay a billion dollar bondoggle if he knew it might jeprodize his job. The same would be true with your local pols. (While we're at it, I think at least one parent should have to attend at least one school a month)
This would improve the schools, the roads, the cities, right on from the bottem to the top.  No longer would it be the squeeky, single issue --bus load of PETA freaks-- getting the attention.

[Dee]

I think of voting as a obligation more than a right. I do like the idea of a "none of the above" option.  At which time, the party would have, say, 30 days to prepare a substitute slate for campaigning and voting.

By the way, Dee, why don't you give us a profile of which United States citizens you would deprive of their right to vote?    I think everyone knows that the broader your data base, the more data input, the more diverse your data base, the more likely your outcoming information is going to be correct.  Unless you're really interested in outcome driven research or outcome driven polls. Or elections.

I am talking about the folks that DON'T keep up with the issues such as 2nd Amendment rights, don't want to keep up with issues, and have no intention of keeping up with issues. Mandatory voting would cause these people to vote for whomever's name caught their eye, when they looked at their MANDATORY BALLOT. They would not add to the political structure integrity, but would instead cause more problems that it already has. Why don't you explain to us why you think this type of person would improve our present situation, when they want no part of it in first place.

[Dixie Dude]

I disagree with getting rid of the electoral college.  For instance, Wyoming has I think 3 electoral votes because of two senators and one representative, and is the least populated state in the nation.  Without having some sort of system they can be represented in, they would be taxed to death.  They probably receive less federal money than any state, yet probably pay out more in taxes.  Large inner cities suck up tax money, while rural areas and states get very little federal assistance.  Less populated states need the voice, that is why we have a by-bicameral system, senators to represent the states, and congressmen to represent districts by population.  By using these numbers of senators and representatives, small and less populated states get a better voice in the overall government.  Otherwise Al Gore would have been president in 2000.  Do you want big city dwellers to run the country, and rural people not to have a voice, because they are outnumbered.  Inner city people have no clue about rural live, hunting, fishing, and shooting.  Do you want them telling us what we can have and not have?

[Dee]

Your exactly right Dixie Dude. Excellent illustration.

[SHOOTALL]

Dixiedude , I have to take issue with your last statement !
first you need to know i hail from a city that was #2 on the list of murder per cap. for many years , hit #1 a few times !
the list put out by the FBI !
those inter city folks know shooting , maybe not aiming or hitting but they sure do shoot ! and shoot and shoot !
trust me cause i worked there and spent more times than i care to count ducking !
the rest of your post was good !

[Dixie Dude]

I know Shootall.  I did a term paper on gun control about 20 years ago and 85% of all gun related crime is with stolen or borrowed guns, and 90% by repeat offenders.

What I ment was, if you are raised in the country and learn from your father, grandfather, or uncles, respect for the weapons, and see what they do to animals you hunt, you learn it is not a toy.  Most inner city people, even the wealthy "high rise" living people don't really know about guns or hunting.  My wife has a niece who lives in Manhattan, and she knows nothing about guns or shooting.  Manhattan is not the "inner city" but a much higher standard of living than say Queens or such.  Since a lot of Americans live in cities, rich or poor, they really either fear guns, or have no clue, so they vote for gun control candidates.  Rural states and communities don't want to give up their rights because of big city dwellers.  I have a friend who is from upstate New York.  His father owns a 200 acre farm.  He said upstate is conservative and usually votes Republican.  New York City is over half the states population by itself.  Because of that, they have a hard time just getting a concealed carry permit.  Have to wait forever, and justify the need.  Hunting is not a need they say.   

[SHOOTALL]

i'M WITH YA !
they haven't a clue !
round here its called HOME TRAINING !

[deltecs]

I know Shootall.  I did a term paper on gun control about 20 years ago and 85% of all gun related crime is with stolen or borrowed guns, and 90% by repeat offenders.

What I ment was, if you are raised in the country and learn from your father, grandfather, or uncles, respect for the weapons, and see what they do to animals you hunt, you learn it is not a toy.  Most inner city people, even the wealthy "high rise" living people don't really know about guns or hunting.  My wife has a niece who lives in Manhattan, and she knows nothing about guns or shooting.  Manhattan is not the "inner city" but a much higher standard of living than say Queens or such.  Since a lot of Americans live in cities, rich or poor, they really either fear guns, or have no clue, so they vote for gun control candidates.  Rural states and communities don't want to give up their rights because of big city dwellers.  I have a friend who is from upstate New York.  His father owns a 200 acre farm.  He said upstate is conservative and usually votes Republican.  New York City is over half the states population by itself.  Because of that, they have a hard time just getting a concealed carry permit.  Have to wait forever, and justify the need.  Hunting is not a need they say.   

Dixie Dude is most correct in this statement.  NY is just a smaller geopolitical area typical of the rest of the US.  The electoral college was designed to prevent US control by high density populations and its political attitudes therein.  Theoretically, only ten states could determine the President if we did not have the electoral college.  The high populations of California, NY, Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania along with 5 other largely populated states have enough people to achieve majority in an election purely one person, one vote.  The electoral college was initiated to prevent the major population areas of the US to control the government at the expense of less populated ones.  This is part of the checks and balances of a representative Republic, not a democracy.  We are a Republic not a Democracy.

[SHOOTALL]

I would guess to keep new up starts out !
so the good old boys don't loose control !
pay back for holding party lines or other azz kissing with in party !
your choice , pick one or all

[Hammerspur]

Sorry, but as I prefer a conservative political approach, there is for me absolutely NO point in ever voting in a presidential election. I live in RI, a blue state that will always cast it's electoral votes for the Dem candidate... even if it was Bozo, or Lucifer!
 
  Some may be able to offer credible evidence they have both already held the office.