Halt! Vote! Rational Reasons for Refusing to Vote

[El Veto-Voter]

Halt! Vote!

Rational Reasons for Refusing to Vote

Some politicians look good in the early going. But the more I hear them say, the more I learn about what they've done, and the more I discover what they plan to do... the worse they seem. It doesn't take long for most of them to appear downright dangerous.

They say the stupidest things and expect us to believe them. They get caught lying and act like it is somebody else's fault. They promise to do what's impossible, like spending trillions on new programs without raising taxes or cutting existing programs. They are unbelievable.

I wonder why most of them are out of the looney bin. I certainly can't agree to give them power over me, you, and the normal people.

In fact, I can't imagine any reason for giving anybody the power to rule.

My vote is my power -- and they're not getting it.
******************************************************

Giving my vote power to a politician, because he claims he'll use it to serve me...is like giving my gun to a stranger in an alley, because he claims he'll use it to protect me.

Falling for such a ruse makes a person a willing participant in his or her own victimization.
******************************************************

Politicians are dangerous. Anybody who wants power can't be trusted with it.

Voters are political enablers. The act of voting makes one an accomplice to the abuses of power to come. And believe me, all politicians abuse the power.

If you vote, you are almost as guilty as the politicians.

If you vote, you forfeit your right to complain or resist.

If you don't vote, you aren't part of the problem.

That's why I don't vote.

El Veto-voter

For the rest of the story, go to: http://www.haltvote.com

[Supposn]

El Veto-Voter, not everyone is fully able to analyze the alternative options regarding a specific issue. I would suppose no one’s qualified to determine the best choices with regard to all political issues; that’s we may profit from expert advice, but the experts cannot fully appreciate what we (rather than they) believe to be related issues and our own opinions as to the priorities among all issues.

If you considered yourself unqualified to consider your government’s political policies regarding any particular political issue, that was a self-forefilling conclusion; regardless of your intelligence, education and life time experiences, your conclusion was correct.
I can understand an individual voters considering themselves to be unqualified to judge some specific issues, but unfortunately too many voters consider themselves unqualified regarding almost all political issues.

Your refraining to vote does further induce the remainder of citizens to choose and elect superior candidates for government offices.
A democratic Republic does not general attain a government more inferior than what the voters deserve; fortunately, we have not had as poor federal administration and congressional performance as we deserved.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Supposn]

[Supposn]

El Veto-Voter, political parties consider the votes they acquire as affirmation of their party and the remainder of votes cast as disregarding (if not actually opposing) their party.
To the extent that political parties believe the voters have perceived or have ben induced to perceive sufficient differences of among parties’ positions regarding specific issues and/or sufficient differences among parties’ priorities with regard to specific issues, they may also believe that to some extent votes cast in elections may also be actual affirmations or opposition to their party’s positions.
The political parties are well aware that they have a more or less numbers of what they describe as their (voter) base, that will vote for their party’s candidate with little regard for the parties’ or the individual candidates positions, voting records or behaviors; but even among these individual diehard party supporters there’s some limit beyond which they will not tolerate.
//////////////////////////////////////////

Some voters party preferences are due to their belief that party more generally supports those voters’ preferred positions regarding political issues; I believe more voters party preferences are due to their belief that the opposing major party strives to oppose those voters’ preferred positions regarding political issues.

All of these voters, (i.e. those that vote for “their” party and those that vote against those who they perceive to be opposed to “their” party) generally will not vote for a lesser than major party even if that parties positions are more compatible to that of the voter. They have concluded that voting for a lesser than major party would be “squandering” their own vote.
This may be logically supported within a venue where the consequences of the election are in serious doubt. The concept’s logically valid when applied to an election for representative within a congressional district considered a swing district or in an election for a U.S. senate seat or the presidency in a swing state. But for the majority of elections within differing political venues the results are not seriously in doubt.

Within these majority of elections when a voters choose not to vote for minor party candidates that better represent their own views, they have chosen to enable major parties to continue disregarding those voters’ preferences.

Unfortunately, political parties do not consider non-voters as those that could be induced to vote in future elections if the party would better support those voter’s political preferences; They consider non-voters as indifferent to government policies and thus they can and should and do ignore them.
I regret that all states do not follow Nevada’s example. Nevada voters can demonstrate their contempt for all listed candidates for any particular office by choosing to vote for “none of the above”; but by showing up and voting they’ve demonstrated that they are not indifferent to their government’s policies.
In this year of 2016 none of the above would by far receive the most votes nationally.

Respectfully, Supposn

[El Veto-Voter]

You are, of course correct about how the political parties, their leaders, and their minions act.

I was of the same opinion until it was pointed out to me that it isn't just a popularity contest. Voting is the act of agreeing. It is what gives them the power. So, if I vote I am taking responsibility for everything government does.

Anything that is not right for me to do to you is not right for us to do to them, and is certainly not right for government to do to everybody. Since the majority of things government does would be crimes if done by individuals, I cannot give my consent.

That is the very political game that I am proposing that people refuse to play.

What the politicans will do or not do, is not under our control, whether we vote one way or another or not at all.

My point is that voting, for or against anybody or anything, is playing the game, and therefore agreeting to its legitimacy.

I contend that it is not legitimate. Therefore I will not play.

[Supposn]

El Veto-Voter,there’s no doubt that individual voters have extremely negligible effects upon governments’ policies. Within this post when I wrote of “those voters” I was referring to those voter’s in aggregate.

The low numbers of those that do not vote in their party’s primary elections leverage the powers of primary voters to influence their party’s choices of candidates and thus their party’s platform.
Unfortunately, although candidates expressed views do not directly determine their official behavior if they’re elected to office, the expressed views of candidates do somewhat affect their party’s platforms and elected candidate’s official behaviors, which in turn drives government’s policies.
The decision to vote or not vote has consequences. The consequences of those that refrain from voting is due to political parties’ presumptions that those numbers of people have no interest in who governs and/or those government’s policies.

Those that do not, (if eligible) vote in party primaries elections and those that do not vote in elections for actual government offices evade any possibility that their votes could to any extent influence their government’s policies.
Those that voted for major party candidates to some extent increased that party’s power and have been of some detriment to all other opposing parties.
Those that voted for winning major party candidates in an election where the results were seriously in doubt have to a much greater extent increased that party’s power and been of detriment to all other opposing parties, but they have to a much greater extent have been of detriment to all other major opposing parties.
Those that voted for a smaller minority party or “write-in” candidates are to some extent expressing their dissatisfaction with ALL of the major parties. If their numbers within a single election should ever be sufficient, all major parties within that election’s jurisdiction would to some extent be impelled to consider those voters’ opinions in the immediate, (if not throughout the further) future. Obviously this is true if the “David” is ever victorious over the “Goliath”; but it’s also true if again a “David” is defeated during any individual skirmish.

This is true to a greater extent if those votes indicated those voters were generally opposed to some policy advocated by one or more of the major parties or those voters were in agreement upon a single concept that the major parties did not support with sufficient vigor.

Regardless of citizens’ choices to vote or not vote, those believing by refraining to vote they’re “not playing the game” are wrong. All citizens are actually “in the game”; those that do not vote have chosen to surrender any possible opportunity to influence government policy. They have a higher opinion of themselves because they make no effort to improve anything.

Respectfully, Supposn

[Supposn]

El Veto-Voter, excerpted from Fri Sep 02, 2016 7:50 pm post:

I regret that all states do not follow Nevada’s example. Nevada voters can demonstrate their contempt for all listed candidates for any particular office by choosing to vote for “none of the above”; but by showing up and voting they’ve demonstrated that they are not indifferent to their government’s policies.
In this year of 2016 none of the above would by far receive the most votes nationally.

Respectfully, Supposn

[El Veto-Voter]

One problem is that one cannot know what any politician or group will do if they attain the power.

Consider a more open and shut case. Politician A says, "if elected I will nuke the world." Politician B says, "I would never nuke the world."

Now, if one cares about the concept of nuking the world, and considers it a negative outcome that should be avoided, and considers it an important enough issue to be worthy of voting about, and agrees that the majority has the right to elect the person to that position of authority.

Then it would be rational to vote for Politician A. Because, after all, A and B are both politicians and will likely do the opposite of whatever they claim.

[Supposn]

El Veto Voter, there are very few “sure bets” in this world; that’s why they’re bets we make after (hopefully) we obtain what what’s the best information available to us and use our best judgement.
Regardless of our individual opinions, we’re not too often offered a more superior chance from anyone and I’m generally grateful if I’m offered that much.

Respectfully, Supposn