John Stoessel says, Don't vote!

[sailaway21]

The ABC reporter makes the case for not encouraging people to vote. I happen to agree with him but read the article for yourself and see if you find him persuasive.
John Stossel : A Duty Not To Vote? - Townhall.com

Everyone has the right to vote and while I think we sometimes take that concept to extremes I, like everyone else, have yet to come up will a poll test that is both fair and capable of being fairly administered. For now, everyone gets to vote!

My example of one that I would not encourage to vote and, in fact, won't be encouraging to vote, is my neighbor. I have a wonderful divorced mother of four living next door to me and you couldn't ask for a nicer neighbor. Her kids are often the highlight of my day. I'm even able on occasion to help her out with a few things and, for that, I am grateful. It gives some meaning to my life beyond my own selfish interests. The gal has not a pot to pee in, to put it bluntly. Are there matters political that affect her? Certainly. But she has no time for other than work and raising her kids...and she does very well at both. She is relatively unconcerned about politics and given the pressures of her existence I can see why.

There may be one side of the political debate that she should understandably favor but, as said, she's too busy to do other than take care of her more immediate needs. I don't think that I should encourage her to vote or try to get her to vote in the manner I choose either. I'd not be presenting a balanced view of the election other than what policies and candidates appeal to me. That's hardly a basis for her to make an informed decision about what her interests may be. If she wants my opinion, that's one thing. But to encourage her to vote or think that i have it in my power to educate her somehow is hubris on my part. I'll keep my mouth shut and she probably won't vote...most likely because one of the kids has just swallowed a brown recluse or something.

And interestingly enough, while I'm boning up on the finer points of the various candidates and ballot initiatives, real life is taking place next door. After I vote next Tuesday afternoon, I think I'll come home and wander next door to spend some time with America's real future. A future I do hope will be able to enjoy the luxury of time and education to be able to vote intelligently. And for that, they'll owe a debt of gratitude to their mother who probably shouldn't vote.

[camaraderie]

Stossel is right. Not everyone should vote but there should not be any TEST or government critera for citizens voting. Rather, voting should be sorta like taking communion...if you haven't done the prep work...it is sacrilege to do the act.
Voting is a precious right and every citizen SHOULD be informed and make an informed choice. When you are NOT informed...you should not vote. That is being a more responsible citizen.

[tonic]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Stossel is right. Not everyone should vote but there should not be any TEST or government critera for citizens voting. Rather, voting should be sorta like taking communion...if you haven't done the prep work...it is sacrilege to do the act.
Voting is a precious right and every citizen SHOULD be informed and make an informed choice. When you are NOT informed...you should not vote. That is being a more responsible citizen.

Cam can you vote for me
Keith Oberman for President
PEACE

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by tonic

Cam can you vote for me
Keith Oberman for President
PEACE

Uh, tonic?

If you want to vote for a write-in candidate, legally or otherwise, you'll need to know the proper spelling of the candidate's name. It's "Olbermann". Things like this are why the Dem's are always crying when the results come in. You need a Ouija board to try figuring out which fruit-loop they were actually trying to vote for. (vbg)

"Give War a Chance"

[tonic]

You missed my point completely saleway. No foul it happens to the best of us. It was a joke. Thought he made a good point.

[camaraderie]

Tonic...got the joke. Sway did too...hence his VBG =
Thanks!

[hellosailor]

"there should not be any TEST or government critera for citizens voting."
Says you. I don't think people should be allowed to vote unless they can understand the issues.
Most voters will vote for a bond instead of a tax increase--because they think a bond will cost them less. Then you explain that bonds are paid for by a LARGER TAX INCREASE to cover both the project AND THE BOND INTEREST and all of a sudden, their vote changes.
Or, you've got the what is it, 30? 50? million folks who say "I didn't understand the terms of my mortgage, I didn't understand that low rate would become 11% in three years." I'm all for giving them mortgage relief--if they'll agree that they're too stupid to run a nation, and they'll give up the right to vote until that mortgage releif is fully paid off.

All Americans were NEVER INTENDED to vote and run the nation. Somewhat crudely and unfairly (but given the times, understandably) only white land-ownering males were allowed to vote. OK, "white" we can strike out. But the idea was that LAND OWNERS have a vested interest in their community. Have permanent stakes and aren't going "back to the homeland" to retire in ten years. And have some minimal level of intelligence--since they've been successful enough to acquire and own land.

Unfair? Yes. Worse when every moron who can make an "X" thinks they can and should run the nation--into the ground and into ruin.

If you want to do it that way, then make it legal to sell your vote--as it used to be. This wouldn't be the first year that two lousy non-choices were running for office, and I'd gladly sell my vote to the highest bidder, because I don't think either one of them is going to save the world.

B-grade movie actors, peanut farmers, soccer moms...Well, at least we can't complain that they don't resemble the folks that vote for them.

The right to vote should be EARNED, not scattered before everyone.