Voting or Complaing which do you do?

[Guest waxwizzard]

Hey guys:

I dunno how many of you really care about voting.. anyway, I found out this site through Universal talking about this contest "Rock the Vote". This contest is supported by many famous artists such as Nelly, Toby Keith, Mesa, Nina, etc. All you need to do is go to the site and registered online and it only takes like 3 minutes. Here is the good part, after you registered, you have a chance to win great prizes like "PS2, Sony Walkman, Free download music, Autographed guitar or Cds, etc." I thought i would share with you guys.. u never know when your luck is coming, right?

 

http://www.gotdownloads.com/rtv/

[drz]

so they are bribing ppl to vote with toys!! Cool.

 

I always thought Rock the vote was a mtv thing??

[bloodhound]

damn , which they did this is UK, but i can't vote. Voter apathy is quite high. apparently only 50 something percent bothered to vote last general election

[Sayonara]

I vote and complain, because I am English.

[LucidDreamer]

I vote and[/u'] complain, because I am English.

 

There must be alot of English blood in the states.

[YT2095]

I often "Protest vote" so I guess I`m in the vote/complain catagory too.

 

sometimes it`s worth voting for some obscure little party that no-ones ever heard off until you see it on the ballot paper, it`s basicly saying that there`s nothing worth voting for out of the Major parties that currently stand.

it`s certainly not a WASTED VOTE!

[jattaway]

/agree with YT

 

I prefer to vote Libertarian on most issues. Big governement / socialism = bad in my book. There is merit to the "change your party from within" mentality, but having your vote elsewhere tends to get more notice I think. Additionally, I feel better about it ;-)

 

The US is really a 2 party system though, it will be hard for a third party to really take root here. Still it does keep it interesting.

[YT2095]

don`t you have a "GreenPeace" party option there?

it would make a good "protest" vote + they`re not bad guys either IF (in a million years) they ever DID get into power

[jattaway]

Ack! You will burn out my eyes reading stuff like that!

 

I like conservationalist practices, but I don't want the government making it mandatory or special interests groups, like Green Peace, going way off the deep end. I prefer science and the basic laws of supply and demand to regulate environmental conservation.

 

There is too much junk science out there for most people to make an informed decission regarding a lot of environmental issues... People are also pretty lazy when it comes to doing their own research. Pretty sad really ;-(

[YT2095]

LOL, the "GreenPeace" part was only an example dude

 

it could just as well be the "Vote for cats and Dogs" party, the point is that you VOTE but NOT for the major parties, thereby denying them a point score and saying I`de rather vote for "them" (whomever THEY are) than YOU!

 

nothing else

[Pangloss]

I actually don't agree with you guys (the four posts above), although I respect that opinion a great deal, and certainly sympathize with it.

 

Ultimately the system is what it is. You can either lead, follow, or get out of the way. The real problem (in our system; I can't speak for England, knowing almost nothing about it) is the lack of attention paid at the level where it not only matters, but at which individuals can make a huge impact.

 

Put another way (a little more abruptly, but again no offense is intended), Americans should stop complaining about the presidential race and pay a little attention to the House races. We vote on them every two years, and yet most people don't know who their current rep is, much less who their opposition might be, with the election only a month away.

 

I blame the media for this problem too, btw.

[LucidDreamer]

What we need is a reform party--a party that runs purely to force reform on the present two parties. The libertarian party is well established, yet it will never win more than a few seats in congress every once in a while. Perhaps a strong leader with a strong reform platform and the libertarian party behind him could win some power and force some major reforms.

 

Or maybe just a reform party; people might be more willing to vote for a party that is purely intended to force reforms, at least for congress. Then again this might not work because each voting district may not be willing to give up its seat, that is looking after its own interests, for the reform of congress.

[YT2095]

but what do you do when your voting choice is either a Rock or a Hard Place?

[Pangloss]

We had a Reform Party. Its more famous candidates included Perot, Ventura and Nader. Now it's defunct, mainly due to division over Nader.

 

but what do you do when your voting choice is either a Rock or a Hard Place?

 

You pick a side you object to less, and then concentrate on more relevent areas.

 

You might not know this being in the UK, but a lot of Americans do this, and it's pretty well reflected in polls and election results.

[YT2095]

Maybe I`m just too picky then, but as for the main UK parties, I don`t like ANY of them in particular, Tony Blair would be the one to get my vote out of the 2 main parties, purely based on the concept of "better the devil you know".

 

hardly a Choice!

[jattaway]

I agree with all of that. I live in a very conservative county. Democrats don't even bother to run here. For me the choice is ultra conservative or religious conservative, and sometimes there are no choices, it is just the ultra religious conservative. ;-) That being said, my advice to anyone is would be vote your ideals in local elections and vote logic in the national. The lesser of evils is the best any of us can honestly expect.

 

All things considered, the UK has the best form of government followed by the US, at least since our civil war. Pre civil war, I think our government was better suited to meeting the needs and desires of the People. 3 Party systems put you in the same boat with Spain in that a fringe group can saddle you with a communist government just because the other 2 parties don’t reflect the needs of the populous close enough for them to reach a consensus.

[Pangloss]

When I was growing up in suburban Atlanta we had two kinds of politicians: Democrats and Democrats. You had your choice, you cast your vote, and that's that. It wasn't until the late 1980s that the Republicans began to make a showing in the south (great book: "The Vital South" by Earle and Merle Black of Emory University).

 

Things DO change. It just sometimes takes a while. Believe me, it's *better* that way.

[Douglas]

I actually don't agree with you guys (the four posts above)' date=' although I respect that opinion a great deal, and certainly sympathize with it.

 

Ultimately the system is what it is. You can either lead, follow, or get out of the way. The real problem (in our system; I can't speak for England, knowing almost nothing about it) is the lack of attention paid at the level where it not only matters, but at which individuals can make a huge impact.

 

Put another way (a little more abruptly, but again no offense is intended), Americans should stop complaining about the presidential race and pay a little attention to the House races. We vote on them every two years, and yet most people don't know who their current rep is, much less who their opposition might be, with the election only a month away.

 

I blame the media for this problem too, btw.[/quote']

Well said Pangloss.

It's a shame that many people don't know who they're voting for.

You'd at least think they had a philosophy about how the country should be run.