Comments on: California Republicans Disenfranchising Themselves

By: Marlene Bronson

Marlene Bronson — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:40:07 +0000

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.

By: Ezra

Ezra — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:11:45 +0000

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.

By: SG

SG — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:00:52 +0000

"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.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:13:23 +0000

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

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:53:58 +0000

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

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:12:49 +0000

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...

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:03:42 +0000

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.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:55:29 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:41:26 +0000

"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?

By: Old Geezer

Old Geezer — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:03:14 +0000

"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?

By: Valhawk

Valhawk — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:17:27 +0000

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.

By: Ezra

Ezra — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:58:39 +0000

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.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:41:06 +0000

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

You've heard the expression "voted with is feet?" Well . . . .

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:18:27 +0000

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

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:46:36 +0000

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.