Even if you don't like the choices for President, there are local offices and propositions that deserver consideration. In many ways, these will affect you more directly than who you vote for President. So, go vote and lave the Presidential selection blank, but vote on the local issues!
Originally posted by CRZMany states - well, I know California for sure - throw away write-in votes that aren't for a previously registered write-in candidate so it's really the same thing. (I'm assuming that either that isn't the case in Maryland, or you didn't care that your vote wouldn't count when you wrote in yourself)
Maryland counts them for the general(not the primary, though) but you have to really push to ask for the actual totals from the Board of Elections. When I wrote myself in for Comptroller in 2002 it was tabulated, as far as their website, as part of the two-tenths of one-percent of the voters labeled as "other write-ins."
Originally posted by GrimisI mean, for Christ's sake. You've got me, OlFuzzyBastard, evilwaldo, redsoxnation, The Goon, and other people who barely agree that the sun is out agreeing on this one. A protest vote for Michael Moore, Anne Coulter or HHH is better than no protest vote at all.
I'd probably make a good president then, as I'm a uniter, not a divider :p
And truthfully, about my comment that it wasn't really worth it, was related to the deadline to register compared to when I moved.
Does anyone remember the Seinfeld episode where Jerry proposes to a woman, and later he realizes that he loves her so much because she was just like him. He said something like, "Now I know what I've been looking for all of these years--me!" Well perhaps Mr. Hayashi has been waiting to see his own name on the ballot. I'm sure that he would agree with all of that candidate's views and initiatives! =:)
There is nothing wrong with not voting. It is just as big a statement as voting is. If you live in a state that is not a "swing state", there is no point in voting for president. My voting Republican in a strong democratic state is pointless. Everyone already knows the result. They knew which way California would go long before Tuesday. (When I lived in CA I did vote, but only for the cool Propositions.) There is nothing wrong with being pragmatic-see why Nader got 0%.
Originally posted by LeroyThere has to be at least ONE of the 55 candidates who are worth voting for. At LEAST one. Even if it's just a choice between the "evil of two lessers" as it is today.
See that's just nonsense. If I'm giving someone my vote, I'm not giving them my qualified vote with which I can express reservations. I'm endorsing them to hold a position of power.
I'm not going to vote for an inebriated baboon just because he up against some zealot running a "Genocide Generates Jobs!!!" campaign.
I'm going to sit my ass at home and vote for neither.
And FWIW we tend to have 6 or 7 candidates at most over here so the chances of finding a good one are much lower. But if there were 55 I'm pretty sure even then I'd struggle to find enough time in the day to gather information on all of 'em.
Maybe no one else will be so annoyed by this, but sometimes you catch a news headline and you're worried. Tonight I was on msnbc and fox and caught the same story. The thread title was the story title on Fox. http://www.foxnews.