08
Aug
07

Wasted Votes

As the Primaries get closer, I’ve seen a lot of people talking about who they’ll vote for, and how they can avoid having their vote “wasted”.  They very idea that a vote can be “wasted” is saddening, and speaks to the political climate of our country.  We’re supposed to be a democracy, are we not?  As such, isn’t our vote the MOST important thing we have?  The little mark we make next to our candidate’s name is the only representation the government has of who we are (unless, of course, our calls are being tapped).  Everything our politicans do effects us, even if the effect is small.  By voting, we are saying to the government and the politicians we vote for, “This is what is important to me.  This is what I want you to do.”  The politicians are the ones wasting those votes, and we are standing by and letting it happen.  That is a slap in the face to every man and woman who suffered and fought to secure that right for us.

A vote for someone who you agree with politically and morally can never be a wasted vote.  Your vote is your voice, and you should be guarding that with every fiber of your being.  To vote for someone you think CAN win over someone you think SHOULD win is a wasted vote for sure.  who gets to decide who can win and who can lose?  WE DO!!!  If you vote for someone simply because you think they can win, you are tossing away your most valuable asset, and for what?  To further a political party and a group of politicians who have done NOTHING to help you personally.  Why would you do that?  What do you think that will accomplish?

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Wasted Votes”


  1. August 8, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    I’ll respectfully disagree. Assume a race between Giuliani (R), Clinton (D) and Nader (I). While Nader’s views are closer to mine than Clinton’s, a vote for Nader is a vote for Giuliani. Had Nader voters voted for Gore in 2000, we would have been spared six years of hell.

  2. August 8, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    I voted for Dems… & it looks like I wasted my vote.
    Nader has a right to run, just like you & I have the right to run. We need a 3rd party badly

  3. 3 unitedwelay1
    August 8, 2007 at 7:09 pm

    I don’t believe that it would have mattered if Nader was out of the race. If there’s election fraud, it doesn’t matter who’s running.

  4. August 9, 2007 at 12:28 am

    At this point I think the only road to a third party would be if a group of anti-war (or at least competent-war) centrists from both parties got together and created a third, centrist party. This party wouldnt even actually have to be very large, it would just have to be the swing vote, and it would gain enormous leverage.

    As for voting your conscience, yes that’s important. But politics is supposed to include the art of compromise (something the Republicans seem to have forgotten and the Democrats seem to be confusing with “capitulation”). Sometimes, in order to get at least part of your agenda through, you have to pick a candidate less to your liking but more likely to win.
    That said, I think this applies far less to the race for the nomination. In this case, vote your conscience for sure. A strong showing even by a candidate who cannot win will nonetheless help push the winning candidate in that direction.

  5. August 9, 2007 at 6:43 am

    The first time I heard the ‘He’s gonna win anyhow’ vote rationale was Reagan’s second term-election. I would hear it from people who said they were still intending to vote for the man even after I pointed out that these voters were electing a man who held opinions on issues that were contrary to their own. It’s one of the disadvantages of living in such a competitive society–people want to be on the winning side, even if it means going against your beliefs.

    yeharr

  6. August 10, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Well said UWL. I very rarely vote for he winner, and I have never considered my vote “wasted”. It’s really a fools argument that an honest vote cast for the candidate of my choice could be a wast. Observe that the “unwasted” vote can only be cast for an establishment candidate, as if providing sanction for the status quo was somehow my only chance of affecting change. I will support the best candidates that I know how as best I can in the next election regardless of what anyone might think.

  7. August 12, 2007 at 12:53 am

    I agree, no vote is wasted. Those votes for Nader pulled the democrats further to the left to try and bring those voters back which is what, Perot’s votes moved the Republicans earlier too.
    The “wasted” argument is developed and pushed hard by the Two mainstream parties to keep voters in line and voting for them. Sadly it works.

    Dave, I would love to see a party of “competent war” centrists. They would have my vote in a minute. If I could actually vote that is. But my support would be there.

  8. 8 unitedwelay1
    August 13, 2007 at 8:39 am

    BP,
    We’ve been nose-diving as far as voting is concerned for years. Hopeless people don’t vote, and there are currently a lot of hopeless people in America right now. They’re deep in debt from health care (even if they have insurance), they’re mired in student loans, affordable housing is difficult to find, and the education system is slipping away. We don’t believe that our vote matters, and we don’t guard it with the reverance and respect it deserves!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Top Posts

Disclaimer

I am not perfect. I do my best to practice what I preach, but I am human. My mantra is, "DO NO HARM". I may not always succeed, but I will always try. My goal is to be a better person today than I was yesterday.

Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Incidentally, this notice itself was swiped from Spiiderweb and Dave Away From Home

%d bloggers like this: