Active Users:349 Time:03/07/2025 06:02:19 AM
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. Joel Send a noteboard - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM
Again, in places like NV, where "nobody" is always an official candidate, that's quite viable; if we did that nationally neither Bush NOR Kerry would've been elected in '04 (which might've made Dennis Hastert President; be careful what you wish... ). But in most of the US, not voting, or intentionally marring a ballot so it's unreadable, will be recorded as an over/undervote (if it's recorded at all) then ignored. Unless an election is decided by hundreds of votes and a single FL county has thousands of overvotes due to a confusing ballot, they aren't relevant (most weren't then, since determining which overvotes were actual errors and how many were "corrected" by voters who wanted Gore would be guesswork).
Hopefully, hopefully the democrats will be so worried about losing seats in general that they will coerce their most moderate members into running. And smartest. This election season looks like looming parade of psychotics, but it might actually be beneficial.</unexpected optimism>


My governor's race consists of dumb and dumber as does my representative's race. I can't in good faith cast a vote for any of them. What a sad state of affairs locally and nationally.

The lesser of two evils is still LESSER. Not voting at all means you don't even bother to comment, and liberals staying home 'cos their guy lost while conservatives do their civic duty, hold their nose and elect the least objectionable candidate. Because of that, they elect the least objectionable RIGHT candidate while liberal anarchist smugly deride the corrupt system they don't bother fixing.

When half the country doesn't bother showing up to say who they want running the whole NATION we don't inaugurate "none of the above" we elect whoever got a majority from the half that bothered to show. If you're not part of the solution you're still part of the problem. I understand and share your frustration with the current system and candidates, but the bottom line is the same as with the people condemnning sex and violence on TV: It continues solely because we tolerate it. Dissenters sitting on the sidelines aren't going to change anything. That simply allows those who created the problem to make it worse (and if you haven't looked around lately that's pretty much what's happened). If you've got time to argue it online, you've got a half hour to an hour (tops) to go vote, and if it's not at least that important to you, why go online and argue about it? I can't guarantee voting isn't as big a waste of time as discussing US politics on a site hosted in the UK, but it's no WORSE.

It's not rocket science, people. If you don't like negative ads, stop voting for people who run them and they'll try an EFFECTIVE strategy. If you don't like crooks and thieves in government, show up and vote someone else. Write in your own name if that's what it takes, but not voting at all isn't "registering your disapproval". It doesn't actually REGISTER anything; that's the problem. It is kinda bizarre though that those with the least faith in government tend to be the most likely to vote, even if it does explain why charges of "socialism" can doom a US candidate.

But don't openly concede you know the system is BADLY flawed, then claim some kind of moral high ground because you don't bother fixing it. Maybe the Little Dutch Boy is better off just saying, "look, I've only got 10 fingers; I can't plug the whole dike" but it wouldn't make him a national hero.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" - 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM 875 Views
You don't want her? - 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM 436 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year. - 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM 314 Views
Now there's an answer - 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM 409 Views
Voting isn't the only way to contribute *NM* - 20/10/2010 02:42:10 AM 133 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best. - 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM 286 Views
Maybe you shouldn't be guessing then? - 20/10/2010 06:00:02 AM 277 Views
Issac has a point. - 20/10/2010 02:14:28 AM 291 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot? - 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM 271 Views
Depends where you live. - 20/10/2010 01:50:30 PM 327 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM* - 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM 121 Views
The difference is when they look at statistics - 21/10/2010 10:49:48 AM 272 Views
Exactly. - 21/10/2010 02:02:46 PM 386 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple. - 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM 398 Views
An intentional NO vote is just as valid as voting. - 21/10/2010 02:46:58 AM 265 Views
Apart from the fact there's no record of it whatsoever, yes. - 21/10/2010 01:37:46 PM 273 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM 387 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is... - 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM 313 Views
Re: (meant to be under the main thread, but I can't move it) - 20/10/2010 02:42:23 AM 284 Views
It's a valid argument. - 21/10/2010 03:26:46 PM 262 Views
i feel kinda bad for her - 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM 311 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to - 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM 315 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM* - 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM 162 Views
Those aren't the Constitution though. - 20/10/2010 12:39:41 PM 298 Views
which show they considered it but did not include it *NM* - 20/10/2010 06:14:37 PM 125 Views
Yep, this. *NM* - 20/10/2010 07:40:19 PM 149 Views
Personally, I think that's splitting hairs. *NM* - 20/10/2010 09:20:28 PM 121 Views
a direct reading is splitting hairs? - 20/10/2010 09:25:14 PM 271 Views
That's what lawyers like the Founding Fathers do. - 21/10/2010 02:56:36 PM 277 Views
I actually felt bad for her - 20/10/2010 10:46:57 AM 283 Views
She's right. - 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM 412 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM* - 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM 217 Views
It is on youtube - 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM 308 Views
Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM 315 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM 281 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM 266 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM 259 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM 350 Views
Re: Jesus Christ - 20/10/2010 05:12:28 PM 258 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse. - 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM 290 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below. - 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM 314 Views
Done. - 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM 263 Views
Yet another reason you aren't a lawyer. *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:09:16 PM 103 Views
Because I don't accept arguments I consider unproven? - 21/10/2010 05:23:52 PM 317 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS - 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM 260 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs. - 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM 266 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say - 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM 263 Views
No it does not show that. - 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM 249 Views
It doesn't matter what some of them may have wanted - 21/10/2010 02:54:54 PM 243 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM* - 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM 108 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM* - 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM 112 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake. - 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM 256 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary. - 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM 236 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating. - 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM 236 Views
No, it's part of the treaty. - 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM 258 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause - 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM 247 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here. - 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM 255 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist - 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM 238 Views
Noticed that, too, did you? - 22/10/2010 08:40:09 PM 349 Views
She's so... bewildered! - 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM 247 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here - 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM 254 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious. - 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM 246 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say - 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM 245 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation. - 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM 341 Views
but it is an impulse that should be limited - 22/10/2010 06:05:10 PM 245 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality: - 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM 290 Views
exactly - 21/10/2010 03:26:00 AM 280 Views
She started out alright - 21/10/2010 02:32:01 PM 248 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point - 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM 392 Views
Lol. Bush-League. - 21/10/2010 04:39:43 PM 243 Views
at leas thten the haters were hating someone who mattered *NM* - 21/10/2010 05:50:03 PM 113 Views

Reply to Message