I thought I'd put this in a new thread because it seems to be running in different places around the forum.

There seems to be this thing going on particularly about voting for Obama.

I don't get why it's big deal.

1/Voting doesn't really change anything. The maxims whoever you vote for the government gets in and if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal sum it up. It's a choice of a couple of shades of the same shit and they all believe roughly the same thing - you can choose between Eastenders or Coronation Street but you're still going to get a soap opera either way.

2/Candidates may have some differences in policies. These may have tangible differences on people's lives. So if, say, one candidate is going to introduce some kind of benefit or tax relief that helps ordinary people that's probably better than the other person who won't. The revolution doesn't look like it's happening any day soon and the lesser of two evils is preferable in the meantime.

I don't see why both can't be true. And I don't see why people seem to get so hot under the collar about voting - voting for a mainstream candidate isn't exactly like sodomising your best friend's mum, recording it and playing the footage at their wedding.

I think voting is going to change exactly fuck all in terms of the big picture - but I also think it's probably worth voting for a candidate if you feel their policies are less evil.

I see registering to vote as being the bigger problem than the voting itself.
You register then you are handing over your sovereignty to someone else.

Yeah democratic rights are a nuisance eh andy.

andyh wrote:
Perhaps in some abstract way, but I can't see how it really means anything.

If I register to vote, I don't feel like I'm handing over any sovereignty. It doesn't make me any less cynical nor does it change the power the govt has over me.
.

Guevarista wrote:
The right to be told what to do and how to live your life?
Thats a 'right' is it?

dogsmilk wrote:
It means everything to me.
If they have no contract with me then I am not obliged to serve.

andyh wrote:
I don't think registering to vote obliges to serve anyone. Technically speaking, you're not serving anyone as they're "public servants" who in theory if certainly not in practice serve you.
And I don't think they care whether you're registered to vote or not - as far as they're concerned you're under the same rules as everyone else either way.

andyh wrote: That's an inverse argument against freedom of speech, what are you gonna attack next, the right of free association?

The person "being told what to do" can always choose whether or not to listen.

Guevarista wrote:
Or goto jail and not pass go, yep.

I have a rather simplistic view on voting - under the right conditions a vote an be a very powerful thing - I suppose the issue is that there is a lack of trust i government to the extent that many feel that their vote means nothing.

Personally I very much feel that if people wish to vote then fair play to them - I do not vote in elections or put myself out there in the hope of real opposition to the main parties available so deserve the 'government/rule makers' that end up in power.

dogsmilk wrote:
Actually a court of law will be looking first for contractual law.
If they are satisfied that there is a contract then they will be looking for breach of contract.

If you're not registered to vote then there's no contract, this is why they want to make it the 'law' that you must register to vote in some countries.

I don't partake in that contract anymore in the UK as they cannot apply it to me anymore, nor do I have to contract with the govt here either because its legal choice to not register to vote should you choose to do so.

andyh wrote:
Please explain a practical, realistic scenario where not registering to vote will have any impact in a court of law.

dogsmilk wrote:
I can't be brought in to the aforementioned court of law in the first place because I am not resident for tax purposes and therefore not obliged to register to vote in the UK anymore. This is the practical realistic scenario is it not?

I haven't voted for a good few years now, for the reasons named in the OP, but I do go along to the polling stations so that I can write, "None of the above," on the card. I think that if people do that, at least it communicates dissatisfaction , so they can't blame a low vote rate on ignorance or apathy.

andyh wrote:
I don't quite get you. You live in Ireland, right? If you're still a UK citizen, then you're just like any other UK citizen living in another country. Surely whether you vote or not is irrelevant.

Gilly wrote:
Yeah, I've done similar. But I think they just get classed as "spoiled" and binned. I like the idea of having a formal "none of the above" option. There was the None Of The Candidates Deserve My Vote party I recall - but they've got the problem of...what would they do if they won?"!

dogsmilk wrote:
lol well...whether anyone votes or not is ultimately irrelevant isn't it?

I'm in Ireland but I'm still a UK citizen.
The punchline here is that I am not required by law to register to vote, however if I was resident in the UK I would be required by law to register to vote.
In Ireland I have the legal right to elect not to register to vote.
I also have the legal right to create a legal limited entity for tax purposes.

As far as the states goes it is vital that people vote. So many people simply can't and those are often the people who could have changed things.

You are correct in the OP. In a sense there is not much change that can be made by a vote but there are good men and women trying to put forward changes and also there are others attempting to take away rights. So once you vote you still need to participate and letter your representative or senator know how you feel.

A good recent example I can give is the bills that are being put forward to outlaw project labor agreements. The attacks on workers with the right to work ( for less) laws. These laws are driving down wages. In the states the fight against union workers went all the way up to the NFL players. If more people voted and were informed then perhaps we could stop this.

i-baster wrote:
So these people who cannot vote in the US would all vote for the libertarian party if they could then?

Gilly wrote: