“The linked article “Your Vote Doesn’t Count” just tells me it isn’t the act of voting that is the issue, it is not being informed before voting is a problem.”

I think you may need to re-read the piece.

“That seems to leave voting as the most viable means to change.”

And the piece argues, compellingly, that your individual vote doesn’t matter in determining the outcome of the election. The outcome is not something you have any meaningful level of control over – you can’t change it even if you do vote.

“They go on about the reasons why you should become more informed, but mix it up with “no one vote was ever the deciding vote”. So what? Tell me that one single part creates a computer, or you can make a DNA strand with a single chromosome.”

Arguably, the individual components of either computers or DNA are more important than individual votes in an election. If you, at random, remove a component from your computer there’s a good chance it will stop working entirely. If you remove a single point of information, you stand a plausible chance of causing a disease. If you stay home from voting… nothing happens.

“Informed consumers, if it be buying a car or picking the next president is critical to a Democracy that has the potential to do the most good.”

There will never be an informed citizenry because it doesn’t make rational sense for them to be informed. Their votes don’t count, so what’s the point of spending their time on how to make informed votes? That’s why politics is, always has been, and always will be, little more than a giant sporting event.

“All that being said, and the solutions to the nation’s problems being so great, staying home instead of voting, just implies you have given up and you have stopped trying.”

Giving up is rational when one has no control over the outcome.

But Weird Willy how will change happen. I’ll say up front I will be voting for Obama as his views are more aligned with mine than Romney’s. But when you stay home how does this help elect a candidate whose views are aligned with yours? I realize our selection process is flawed. I realize any candidate I have seen in the last forty years isn’t the best choice, but I want to limit the damage a president can do so I vote for a candidate that I am less fearful of.

You present a tough question. I likely won’t be voting this election because I don’t think it matters.

The contest I care most about is a very local one… the local sheriff. I care about this race because it’s the sheriff that sets law enforcement policy in my rural area… And in reality? That decision has already been made in the republican primary. No one else has a prayer in this county. This works for me because I like the current Sheriff, Chris Degase, and he will be reelected no matter what I do simply because of the massive republican stance this county has.

On the presidential race, that’s a different story. Personally? I think Obama will win. Would I vote for him? Hell no! Logic therefore dictates that I should vote for Romney, right? No. I don’t want him to win either. I think both are sociopaths who are doing this for their own warped view of what’s ‘right’ for the country… meaning they’re doing it for their own personal goals.

In a twisted way, I almost want Obama to win because I think he will increase the national deficit faster, and thus usher in the inevitable collapse of our financial system faster.

However, it’s also possible that Romney being elected could do that too… by setting up a Republican power block (so to speak) that applies friction to the FED, causing an increase in interest rates that … wait for it… ushers in the inevitable collapse of our financial system.

Either way, it’s not a matter of IF the system is boned, but when. Personally, I want it sooner than later. Get it over with so the recovery can start.

“I don’t think they would be able to start a revolution, nor are they capable of a peaceful means of taking the government into their own hands. That seems to leave voting as the most viable means to change.”

It is remarkable how dramatically people’s perceptions can differ. Regardless of whether singular personalities may be capable of starting revolutions or taking the government into their own hands, voting still seems to be a basically useless act to me.

“[S]taying home instead of voting, just implies you have given up and you have stopped trying.”

I will more than imply it, I will state outright that I have given up and stopped trying to achieve substantive change through a means proven to be essentially ineffectual.

Thank you. I do realize that, and their comments point to that, but I don’t think they would be able to start a revolution, nor are they capable of a peaceful means of taking the government into their own hands. That seems to leave voting as the most viable means to change. I would find it difficult to “get behind” someone who looks like they don’t care.

The linked article “Your Vote Doesn’t Count” just tells me it isn’t the act of voting that is the issue, it is not being informed before voting is a problem. Well I don’t disagree with that, but bitching about it is like crying over spilled milk. They go on about the reasons why you should become more informed, but mix it up with “no one vote was ever the deciding vote”. So what? Tell me that one single part creates a computer, or you can make a DNA strand with a single chromosome.

Informed consumers, if it be buying a car or picking the next president is critical to a Democracy that has the potential to do the most good. Of course that is where we all differ. The good folks at Reason have a view of what the most good is, Romney has another, and Obama has a third.

All that being said, and the solutions to the nation’s problems being so great, staying home instead of voting, just implies you have given up and you have stopped trying.

No idea who you mean, or what you are trying to say.

“By not voting at all, you forfeit the chance to make a difference in the small races, which are often decided by small numbers, and where you can get your preferred candidate in with a little bit of hard work.”

Over the River:

“It is as if they don’t want change, they just want to bitch.”

Both these comments assume that voting is a viable means of “making a difference” or “wanting change”, but the same group you’re complaining about dispute that assumption…

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count

http://www.townofmedley.com/index.php

Look at the Dennis Rader (BTK) killer in Kansas, he murdered until he gained the position as the code enforcer.
With his newly found power in that position he was able to control his murderous intentions by being a bully for the government.

http://www.theagitator.com/2012/09/12/dog-not-on-a-leash-in-st-louis-thats-a-puppycide/

Police agencies continue to emphasize excitement, machismo and, increasingly, outright militarism. At the same time, accountability is virtually non-existent and it seems that other officers are willing to cover-up for almost any kind of deviance presented by other officers. A job as a police officer also gives one wide access to other people’s homes and lives, as well as presumed legitimacy in the eyes of most people.

Unfortunately, I’ve come to believe that police agencies may be the perfect place for a psychopath to seek employment. What better place for a person who constantly needs excitement, loves to manipulate others, lies like he breathes and doesn’t have a problem with hurting and/or dominating people. In drug war America, this is wholly consistent with policing. And could their be a better job for someone who needs a legitimate sounding excuse to stalk victims and/or enter their homes?

Using the prosecutor’s twisted logic Michael Nida would have been justified in using deadly force against “Officer” Steve Gilley because Nida reasonably feared Gilley was armed and dangerous (he was).

TOO SOON! TOO SOON! LOL! Mambo # 5 if memory serves me. Clever.

4 wrecks in 18 months! And then he turns right in front of the guy and sarge comes to the scene and just happens to smell beer. Holy shit, that is the most obvious cover-up I have seen in a while. You got a cop who can’t drive worth a shit, so what do you do, just cover up for his mistakes. Wait til he kills somebody. Nice. And the union douche that railed about how unfair it was is just a parody of a police union thug-protector.

On a positive note, this is all playing out in public. It’s all on tape. Let the public see how their police behave when they hope that no one is looking.

the cops falsifying the report over the accident have caused serious harm to this guy- he can’t drive, his property’s damaged, he has a record, he’s out money… it’s mind blowing. Hell, if the 2 cops didn’t help the cop that hit the guy cover it up, the union probably would’ve blackballed them.

The good old “Split Second Decision” Defense. I so remember studying that in law school. It applies to everyone, police or not. It’s as old as the magna – ok I’ll stop. Sick world, ours

My problem with those non-voters stems from the fact that there are more races than the one at the top of the ballot. From the various state initiatives (mentioned above), to the local elections, there are plenty of races where your vote can make a large difference. You want to build your party, get the Libertarians into more power? Start with the down ballot races. Get your party into smaller positions, like school boards, town councils, county commissioners. Start building from there until you can start challenging for state house seats.

By not voting at all, you forfeit the chance to make a difference in the small races, which are often decided by small numbers, and where you can get your preferred candidate in with a little bit of hard work.