30 Comments

1. Ken  •  Nov 12, 2009 @11:05 am
   

   I think that’s a fair question, Ezra. But are you sure it’s a fair question that only can be directed to Republicans? Has anyone done a recent evaluation of Democratic candidates?

2. Vedrfolnir  •  Nov 12, 2009 @11:23 am
   

   I don’t care how little Carly has voted, he can’t be worse than Boxer. We’ve had an incumbent for too damn long and I’m tired of her. And I hate that “Everyone should vote” crap. No, people who don’t pay attention to politics and current advances have no right voting. If you can’t name me the three branches of government or your Representative’s name then fuck off. You’re diluting the ballot box with your retarded worthless opinion riddled vote. My vote is utterly meaningless thanks to you. If you can’t tell me what stem cells actually ARE, you have no purpose being in the booth voting for or against. Pick up a broadsheet or fuck off.

3. Ezra  •  Nov 12, 2009 @11:23 am
   

   Given the depressing way politics works, I feel pretty confident that if there were any Democrats who had voting problems right now, we would have heard about them. You have to believe the Republicans have combed over every record they can find. Their silence says something there.

4. delurking  •  Nov 12, 2009 @11:45 am
   

   “Wannabe Senator Carly Fiorina: voted in 6 elections since moving to California in 2000 …”

   How many elections have there been since 2000?

5. Valhawk  •  Nov 12, 2009 @11:46 am
   

   I can’t believe this is an issue. So what if some candidate didn’t vote recently. Especially as a Republican in California. Thanks to the Electoral District system we use in the US his vote in California has no value. I mean the last time California went Red for any national election was more than 20 years ago.

   So unless so real criticism can be leveled this is nothing but worthless partisan political bluster.

6. Patrick  •  Nov 12, 2009 @11:54 am
   

   Ezra, I note that you were a big supporter of John Edwards for President. Not being from North Carolina, you probably didn’t know that before Edwards ran for senate in 1998 he hadn’t voted in over a dozen years.

   That’s probably why Edwards isn’t President today. Don’t you feel had?

7. Charles  •  Nov 12, 2009 @11:59 am
   

   Vedrfolnir: Perhaps it is true that only people who know enough about the issues to meet some threshold should vote. But if you don’t know enough to vote, you sure as hell don’t know enough to govern.

8. iengland  •  Nov 12, 2009 @12:00 pm
   

   Maybe they were disenfranchised. Maybe they thought the goverment was unchangeable overly corrupted. Maybe they are the “silent majority” we hear about so often who are now “making themselves heard”. Now, they appear to be engaging or re-engaging the political process. Good for them. It does not matter what someones party affiliation is, there are far too many people who feel that their vote is not important enough to matter. Luckily, in the last few years, that hs been changing.

9. Ezra  •  Nov 12, 2009 @12:10 pm
   

   Heh, I felt had on numerous levels with Edwards. Only Peter Camejo has let me down more in the political world…

   There have been at least 14 Statewide elections in California since 2000.

   I strongly agree with Charles here. It isn’t about how they voted, it’s about having the respect for the system you now want to inhabit and also respect for the institution of democracy.

   Regular readers here know how seriously I take every election, and I can tell you that checking whether a candidate has voted has been added to my list.

10. Anna  •  Nov 12, 2009 @12:27 pm
    

    I guess this is as opposed to Democrats, who vote early and vote often.

11. Ezra  •  Nov 12, 2009 @12:28 pm
    

    By the way, a few more fun facts about wannabe Secretary of State Damon Dunn: he is totally unaware of the “black box” electronic voting scandal that California faced a few years ago, and (most damning) he has never heard of the motor-voter law. Yikes!

12. MadRocketScientist  •  Nov 12, 2009 @1:20 pm
    

    If you can’t take the time to vote, why should we think you will take the time to properly represent us?

    I completely agree! Even when I was in the military I made sure I was able to vote.

13. Chris  •  Nov 12, 2009 @1:58 pm
    

    I had no idea that you needed to take an oath to vote in Vermont (I had to google “Freeman’s oath “). That’s interesting.

14. Charles  •  Nov 12, 2009 @2:48 pm
    

    “I will not have sex with any more of my granddaughters.”

    “Thank you. Here is your ballot.”

15. Black Bellamy  •  Nov 12, 2009 @3:08 pm
    

    Voting is the most important thing about being an American? If I choose not to exercise my right to vote, then that is my political statement. The freedom to make statements like that, whether symbolic or literal, is the most important thing about being an American.

16. Mike  •  Nov 12, 2009 @3:46 pm
    

    I’ve voted in every election since turning 18. The only reason I vote is to avoid a “scandal” like this should I ever run for elective office.

    Voting is trivial. Thinking that one’s vote matters is narcissism. It’s an empty gesture that I make simply so that I may be able to manipulate the self-important years from now.

17. Patrick  •  Nov 12, 2009 @4:18 pm
    

    I vote, for the most part, in order to keep my moral right to complain.

18. Ken  •  Nov 12, 2009 @4:41 pm
    

    That’s probably why Edwards isn’t President today. Don’t you feel had?

    You’ve heard the expression “voted with is feet?” Well . . . .

19. Ezra  •  Nov 12, 2009 @4:58 pm
    

    I tend to agree with Patrick, if you remove yourself from the process of voting, you are also removing your opportunity to complain.

    The argument that a bunch of rich people like Meg Whitman felt disenfranchised is hilarious. The way for the silent majority to make themselves heard is through voting (unless you are one of those tree of liberty wackos…) Not voting makes the statement that your vote doesn’t matter a self fulfilling prophecy.

20. Valhawk  •  Nov 12, 2009 @6:17 pm
    

    Ezra: Your sentiment is not true at all. Due to the winner take all electoral college system the net result of voting for a certain party in certain states is the same as not voting. Voting Republican in California, Massachusetts, or Maryland is about as useful as voting Democratic in Texas.

    I mean the only reason I voted for president in the last Election was to vote for a third party. Voting Republican in a national election in my district has the name net effect as not voting at all.

    Plus you also discount knowing not voting. It is as legitimate a choice as any. Why should I be forced to vote the lesser of two evils, I have the perfect moral right to give neither of them the legitimacy of my vote, and still call them out on their bad decisions.

21. Old Geezer  •  Nov 12, 2009 @9:03 pm
    

    “If you can’t name me the three branches of government or your Representative’s name then fuck off.” Hey, Vedrfolnir, maybe if you can’t figure out the gender of the person you’re voting for, you should fuck off too?

22. Chris  •  Nov 13, 2009 @7:41 am
    

    “Due to the winner take all electoral college system the net result of voting for a certain party in certain states is the same as not voting. Voting Republican in California, Massachusetts, or Maryland is about as useful as voting Democratic in Texas.”

    In presidential elections, sure. There are plenty of non-presidential elections, no?

23. Patrick  •  Nov 13, 2009 @7:55 am
    

    It was once said that voting Democratic in a presidential election in North Carolina was useless. In fact, that was said right up until November 2008.

24. Ken  •  Nov 13, 2009 @8:03 am
    

    Have any of these candidates who failed to vote explained that they refrained from voting on principle? If not, why are we pretending that they did so?

    I think it’s perfectly legitimate to consider that a candidate didn’t give a shit sufficiently to vote — particularly when they are running for a position that regulates voting.

25. Patrick  •  Nov 13, 2009 @8:12 am
    

    In the case of Carly Fiorina, the obvious answer is, “I was running Hewlett Packard,” a Fortune 100 corporation that hasn’t needed a bailout and has actually performed well during the recession. I’m sorry that I didn’t have time to vote. I must have been too focused on the welfare of HP’s shareholders and employees.

    As for these other jokers…

26. Ken  •  Nov 13, 2009 @8:53 am
    

    She ought to check what her public (or easily obtainable) schedule says for those days before she goes with that one.

27. Chris  •  Nov 13, 2009 @10:13 am
    

    Carly Fiorina’s tenure at HP was awful. The shareholders and employees would have been better served by her going to vote.

28. SG  •  Nov 13, 2009 @11:00 am
    

    “if you remove yourself from the process of voting, you are also removing your opportunity to complain.”

    Unless you are complaining about the voting system itself.

29. Ezra  •  Nov 13, 2009 @11:11 am
    

    Just to once again underscore the point Chris made above, even if you are protesting the two party mess of a system (and trust me, if you go back & look at my election posts, I am right there with you) there are still many smaller, but no less important issues. In many ways, my city council will have more impact on my life than my Senator will, and ballot issues and bonds are not (strictly speaking) partisan measures.

    If you want to leave the space for President blank because you can’t abide either choice, that is a legitimate and honorable choice. If you want to throw your arms up and walk away from the entire democratic process because of it, that is the cheap way out.

30. Marlene Bronson  •  Nov 23, 2009 @12:40 pm
    

    Something to consider; I have been voting since I was 18, 23 years ago. Does that make me more knowledgeable than Damon? “NO it does not.” In fact, Damon has the intelligence and I am astonished by his success. Politicians in office: How many times have they voted and they still do not get it right. I am optimistic that Damon with the knowledge and wisdom is the best choice for California to reach the goal.

Leave a Reply