[RaVeN]

Here's a crappy 3D image I made back in 2008:




Regardless of what side(s) you're on - If you don't vote, you can't complain for the next 4 years.
So if you're a eligible US citizen then get out there and vote, even if it is a protest vote.

[Uscari]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=07w9K2XR3f0 (Warning: TONS of explitives)

A funny yet brilliant argument for why you can only complain if you don't vote.

Although I agree its important to participate in the political process, which is why I voted for the first time via absentee ballot last Thursday

[Frog]

I personally am voting for Jawa. I think he will make an excellent new leader to KR, and will undoubtedly lead us to glory and treasure. If I had any doubt, it vanished with ease upon Jawa's new declaration of all hobo's getting first class citizenship in KR.

Vote for Jawa.

Save KR.

[RaVeN]

A funny yet brilliant argument for why you can only complain if you don't vote.

Funny? Sure. Brilliant? Nope.

Someone who does not vote is not lumped into a camp of people who are fighting or dismissing a system.
They are thrown into a camp of people who either simply don't vote or they forgot/did not have the time.

If someone wants to protest the choices of candidates we have or the system we're in then do a protest vote - like I mentioned above.
Vote for anybody else.
Vote King Kong!
Vote yourself.
If you can at least do that then you can complain.

Because if you can't even lift a pen to try and affect the world around you then, no, you have not earned the right to complain.

(Can you actually physically complain? Yes, of course. Have you earned it? No.)

[John]

I miss grade school. Things were so much simpler back then.

[Dopie]

Here's a crappy 3D image I made back in 2008:
If you don't vote, you can't complain for the next 4 years.

I gotta say, as a tax paying citizen, I chose not to vote simply because every candidate that's currently running in the election wasn't one I could get behind and support, so therefore I didn't vote.
However, it's my constitutional right to be able to freely express myself (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech).

I'm not a huge political buff, but I do enough research to know what I like and don't like, and what benefits me as a U.S. citizen, a tax paying citizen, and a holder of health insurance through the company I work for.

Sorry to say, but declining to vote doesn't remove the ability to voice a negative opinion about the direction the country is going or the options we have when it comes to choosing our next Commander in Chief.

[RaVeN]

Sorry to say, but declining to vote doesn't remove the ability to voice a negative opinion about the direction the country is going or the options we have when it comes to choosing our next Commander in Chief.

Please see my post above.
TL;DR below

(Can you actually physically complain? Yes, of course. Have you earned it? No.)

[Dopie]

Sorry to say, but declining to vote doesn't remove the ability to voice a negative opinion about the direction the country is going or the options we have when it comes to choosing our next Commander in Chief.

Please see my post above.
TL;DR below

(Can you actually physically complain? Yes, of course. Have you earned it? No.)

I read it, I just felt like expressing my opinion .

[Uscari]

Yeah I don't think there is an argument if you actually have the right to complain, I think Rav just uses to word to dramatically illustrate how important it is to participate in the political proccess.

Having said that, the reason I called George's argument brilliant was because as you said, whether you vote or not can speak to whether you support or oppose the current system. The idea is that our electoral proccess, no matter who you vote for, seems to only favor a dualistic proccess, where only one of two candidates can win, and no one else can really be competetive.

George's argument is that by voting in that proccess, you legitamize the authority of it, and therefore support a system that underminds democracy, and therefore you are responsible for the poor leaders you complain about, and actually lost your right to complain.

When I say it's brilliant, not saying I agree, I just think it's powerful how he turns conventional wisdom on it's head.

[John]

But his argument would work if we lived some place where voting didn't matter and deciding leaders is left to someone else. But we live some place where each person can vote for who they want to lead and therefore voting does matter. Therefore if you didn't vote, if you didn't participate in the process to decide a leader, then you can't complain about the outcome. If you are too lazy to make a decision then someone else will make it for you. Laziness does not give you a right to complain.

If people believe they live in a corrupt system and deny their right to vote soley because both options are crappy, then they either don't understand how the system works or don't appreciate the freedom they have. In either case they don't have right to complain about anything because they don't even understand what they're complaining about.

If good people sit back and do nothing then they should not be surprised when things go to crap under the supervision of bad people.

[Uscari]

The idea is that the lack of a vote is an expression of disapproval, and therefore what the system produces is a product of a system other people made legitamate through participating is.

The idea is that even though we have the choice to pick our leaders, our choices are in the pocket of special interest groups, rather than representative of the people's will. You can argue that our system is not corrupt, but if our system is corrupt, it is understandable that someone would feel right to complain ESPECIALLY if they don't vote.

TL;DR: The argument presumes a corrupt political system, where you don't vote in order to earn the right to complain, you refrain from voting in order to keep your existing right to complain. Not saying I agree with it, but I don't think it's fair to assert that people must vote in order to complain with any legitimacy.

[John]

Not voting is not expressing disapproval of a system. It's simply not voting.

If someone wants to protest the choices of candidates we have or the system we're in then do a protest vote - like I mentioned above.
Vote for anybody else.
Vote King Kong!
Vote yourself.
If you can at least do that then you can complain.

[Uscari]

I don't think protest votes and the lack of voting have to be mutually exclusive concepts in this area. A protest vote is just saying you refuse to play the "lesser of two evils" game by voting for someone irrelevant to the result, while a choice not to vote is a refusal to play that game by not participating at all.

At the end, the result is an expression of discontent, and I don't think it's fair to write off nearly 50 percent of Americans as simply being too lazy to "do their civic duty" when there is compelling evidence for those people to believe that voting can actually do a disservice to the Union.

[John]

Ok, fine. But what does not voting accomplish? Yes, no one can stop you from complaining, and using this logic, not voting means you can complain no matter what happens even though you made no effort to participate in the decision making process. This is laziness or negligence, whatever you want to call it. That fact that this is Amercia we're talking about means it's most likely laziness.
Not voting accomplishes absolutely nothings, much less expressing discontent.

[Fluffy]

Imagine if everyone, except for 1 person, did not vote. So with 1 vote, that decides the direction of the country until the next election.

So everyone who disagreed with the system did nothing and lost their chance to make a difference. Sure, they made a statement, but talk is all they did.

Now imagine if they banded together and actually voted for someone, anyone, as long as they all voted the same guy/gal. They've made a statement, plus they get to make some changes.

Though this is virtually impossible to achieve, the moral of the story still stands. Change begins with you. Or something.

[Uscari]

Yeah like I said before, I agree voting is important, and that you can only make real change through the political process, rather then giving up on that. I was just arguing against the notion that you didn't have the legitimacy to complain if you decided not to vote. So really I have nothing else to argue about

[John]

@fluffy, if you could get a strong media outlet behind you then it would be possible to run indepent successfully. Nowadays, the media hardly ever talks about independent runners, just the R&D ones. There have been popular ones that people never heard of or just forgot by election day.

[Fluffy]

Like Bernie Sanders right? I only know of him because my brother in law mentioned him when we talked. Can confirm media sucks.

[MasterM]

Like Bernie Sanders right? I only know of him because my brother in law mentioned him when we talked. Can confirm media sucks.

Bernie was not an independent candidate, he was up for the Democratic nomination -- it was between him and Hillary in the primaries. The Democratic party chose Hillary, I guess for a number of reasons including but not limited to: she would have been the first woman president, she had a lot of executive political experience already as SecState, she was the establishment choice whereas Bernie leaned more Socialist. Anyway, to say that Bernie received no media coverage is not true, the Democratic race was extensively covered by major outlets during the primaries. Once Hillary won the primaries then yes, nobody was reporting on Sanders anymore.

A lot of people have been hypothesizing that Sanders would have won the general election. He lost the primaries in part due to how the DNC manages the primary system, which is...bizarre to say the least.

[Fluffy]

Interesting because in Australia we don't get bombarded by every detail of the US elections. Everybody I had a casual conversation with about the topic failed to mention Bernie Sanders even once. It seemed like he would have been even more of a progressive choice of President than Obama.

[MasterM]

Everybody I had a casual conversation with about the topic failed to mention Bernie Sanders even once. It seemed like he would have been even more of a progressive choice of President than Obama.

The nominees were chosen at the conventions in July, but Bernie had essentially dropped out of the race by June (iirc) when he realized he wasn't going to win. He was very progressive (I mean he still is, he's a senator) and did end up forcing the Clinton campaign to move more progressive in order to win the nomination. He didn't have the party establishment support though, and I suspect too many people were leery of his socialist policies for him to ever win the nomination as it stood at the time.