Althouse: "People, young or old, who don't know the issues, budget battles, or the current state of regulations and policy should NOT vote."

October 15, 2014

"People, young or old, who don't know the issues, budget battles, or the current state of regulations and policy should NOT vote."

"Ever. I don't care what Rock the Vote or anyone else says. It's not your 'civic duty' to be a dipshit voter. Stay home if you don't know what the hell you're voting for."

I'd put it a nicer way. Abstaining from voting is a kind of vote.* You are registering the opinion that the question asked is not sufficiently interesting to you to have a preference, but you stand in reserve, as one of the votes that will be activated if and when the difference between the 2 candidates does make a difference to you. It's notable that the nonvoters are generally presumed to represent votes that would be cast for the Democratic Party's candidate, but that presumption shows how the abstention means something. The nonvoter doesn't want to give affirmation to the Democratic Party's candidate. The nonvoter is saying I don't like any of you people. Or maybe he's saying something else. Who knows? But it's not as though we know exactly what the voter is saying when he votes for one candidate or another. It might be I love X. It might be X is slightly less bad than Y. I say all the votes — cast and uncast — count and have meaning.
_____________________

* Think of the phrase "voting present."

88 comments:

Henry said...: I pretty much agree with this, though not the prescriptive tone.

There are many local officials whose job performance escapes my notice and whose party affiliation seems relatively immaterial to what they do. I generally pass on voting in such races.; 10/15/14, 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Every local election should have the option of 'Lottery Vote': if 'Lottery vote' wins then the names of all registered voters in the district are thrown in the hat, with the one subsequently selected blindly from the pile now elected. Random selection as government. I have my speech ready.; 10/15/14, 10:23 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: "The nonvoter is saying I don't like any of you people."

That's what I said when Romney ran - I stopped voting right there and haven't looked back.

But this new effort to stop people from voting?

Whites just don't get what this country's about,...; 10/15/14, 10:27 AM
mikee said...: Althouse, did you hear a loud whooshing noise as the point of the linked Facebook post passed well over your head?

If a person doesn't know what they are voting for, or against, why the hell are they voting?

Voting "Present" worked for Obama as a Senator, but it sure as hell isn't the way to elect good representative government. And now that I read what I just wrote, voting "Present" sure as hell isn't what an elected rep is supposed to do, either.; 10/15/14, 10:31 AM
Fen said...: The argument is usually in this form:

Teacher lets class vote on where they want to go next field trip.

3 students don't care, won't be going because of football/band practice conflict.

Should those 3 be allowed to vote?; 10/15/14, 10:31 AM
Nonapod said...: I wish that there was a very quick and dirty civics quiz that people had to take before they could cast a vote. But I guess that would be too exclusionary and elitist.; 10/15/14, 10:31 AM
mccullough said...: If you know the issues, you also know that the candidates running won't address those issues if elected.; 10/15/14, 10:32 AM
tim maguire said...: Agreed, if you're not informed of the issues and the candidates' stands on those issues, then you can't make an informed choice, you can't further your or society's interests with your vote.

Uninformed voters have a responsibility to themselves and to the informed voters to stay home on election day.; 10/15/14, 10:32 AM
Fen said...: Crack: Whites just don't get what this country's about

No, Blacks are just too stupid to understand. Average IQ of 80. Borderline retards. No wonder they are still building with mud and straw in Africa.

Quite frankly, I'm amazed Crack even knows how to use a keyboard.; 10/15/14, 10:33 AM
Jman said...: What if you know what you're voting against?; 10/15/14, 10:34 AM
Brando said...: That's exactly what it is--a nonvoter is someone saying "I don't care enough about one of these candidates winning, or even voting third party to deny the winner a plurality, to go through the effort required to cast my vote." And when it is easier and easier to cast a vote--with early voting, absentee ballots, etc.--the voice of the non-voter means even more. It says "these choices are not worth my time to such a degree I can't even bother mailing a ballot".

If voters feel that way, it's not their fault for not caring--rather than make this look like a moral failing on their part, perhaps the partisans with their idiotic "vote or die" rhetoric should consider that maybe some people just see a choice between two turds as something they'd rather not be involved in.; 10/15/14, 10:36 AM
B said...: What is mandatory voting's effect. Do those who would rather not vote leave ballots blank? Or does going to the polls increase votes? We might infer something about voters from that.; 10/15/14, 10:38 AM
Bob Boyd said...: I say we should require voters to present an ID before they can abstain.
I mean what's to prevent some unscrupulous person from abstaining 3 or 4 times?; 10/15/14, 10:39 AM
Jman said...: With increased polarization, most people cannot be persuaded: they vote either Republican or Democrat and will never change their preference. How many of those people (how many of us) really KNOW about the issues, budget battles, etc. We sort through the information and are drawn to that which affirms are political bias and then we vote accordingly.; 10/15/14, 10:41 AM
Original Mike said...: While I always vote, I rarely vote every race on the ballot. I was appalled in the 2000 Florida dust up that Democrats were pushing to count as a Gore vote all ballots that did not have a Presidential vote, but did have down ballot votes for other Democrats.; 10/15/14, 10:45 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: The Terry Plan is to offer people $10 at the polling place to NOT vote.
It's not a poll tax. If your vote ain't worth $10 to you, you shouldn't be voting.
I was thinking the government should do the pay out, but would it be illegal for a private citizen to stand in front of the polls and offer people $10 to not vote? If they only made the offer to Black folks, would it be illegal discrimination? Against Blacks or whites?; 10/15/14, 10:46 AM
Original Mike said...: Absolutely you should not vote if you are not informed. That's what's so wrong with Colorado mailing ballots to everybody. The effort it takes to get to the polls is a positive.; 10/15/14, 10:48 AM
Froth said...: In reality one may be totally up to speed on issues, candidates' platforms, budget implications; yet, most candidates are liars, or have no impact on those very issues with which one is concerned.

There are also those with whom you disagree, who are completely up on the issues, blahblahblah, who cancel out your vote. I see no problem with idiots voting-one just hopes that the outcome of the vote reflects your desires. He who prevails, prevails; get more of your own idiots out to vote, essentially.
I've become 90% cynic now.; 10/15/14, 10:53 AM
garage mahal said...: If you have ever carried around a yellow flag with a snake on it you should definitely NOT vote.; 10/15/14, 10:55 AM
Jman said...: It's a fallacy to believe that if only voters were better informed, more educated on the issues, that they would make "better" choices, the "correct" choices. "If only you would see it my way, the world would be better." When has the world ever been like that?

If voters become better informed and still disagree on who should be elected, then what's the difference between an uneducated voter who disagrees with you and an educated voter who disagrees with you?

Or will we somehow, miraculously, get better candidates now that we're all so educated (and riding unicorns)?; 10/15/14, 10:57 AM
traditionalguy said...: Many GOP voters are electing a government to benefit the rich although they are not rich themselves. Very noble of them.

But who do you vote for? The New Deal Harry truman/ JFK Dems are all gone and have been replaced by promugators of lies and delusions designed by Obama to destroy the USA.

The Tea Party has the answers, but not the support to win in a three way election.; 10/15/14, 10:57 AM
William said...: Professor Althouse:

I think that this dangerously uninformed and disengaged electorate is a serious threat to the continuation of our Republic.

I posit that the generations that came before us – even though they might not have been as “educated” as today’s voters – were much better informed on the issues. And hence, they were “better” voters.

Making matters worse is the mainstream media’s failure to maintain any degree of objectivity. Journalists – and their management – pursue their own agendas, agendas that are typically to the left on the political spectrum. They make little effort to raise the overall level of awareness of the voting population on important issues, opting instead to publish what appeals to them alone.

A couple of days ago, Arthur Manigault Wilcox, a newspaperman for forty-four years, died here in Charleston, South Carolina. He had a sign in his office that summed up his approach to the newspaper business, “Print the news and raise hell.”

Unfortunately, almost no one is printing the news and raising hell any longer. And that’s why the voters are so pathetically uninformed.

Lamentable.; 10/15/14, 10:57 AM
MikeDC said...: The quote is kind of dumb to say uninformed voting is "harmful" because votes are so rarely decisive.

How many votes are decided by only a one vote plurality (you could extend this in big elections to say a couple hundred). Next to none.

So really, an uninformed vote doesn't hurt unless it's decisive.

Likewise, uninformed voters as a group wouldn't hurt if they were evenly distributed across the voting political parties. Then the law of large numbers would just kick in and it wouldn't matter.

The problem, of course, is that uninformed voters are probably not randomly distributed across the parties.; 10/15/14, 11:00 AM
rehajm said...: The Crack Emcee said...
"The nonvoter is saying I don't like any of you people."

That's what I said when Romney ran - I stopped voting right there and haven't looked back.,

This is not a unique opinion amongst black males, though many came out and voted for Obama. Twice.

Will they be motivated to vote for a 69 year old white woman?; 10/15/14, 11:00 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Althouse, did you hear a loud whooshing noise as the point of the linked Facebook post passed well over your head?"

I don't accept your characterization of which direction is up.; 10/15/14, 11:02 AM
rehajm said...: Staying home matters.; 10/15/14, 11:02 AM
jacksonjay said...: Oh, but that Swaggy Smile! Who could resist? Issues, budgets, policies and regulations be damned, that Smile?

19th Amendment be Damned!; 10/15/14, 11:02 AM
Chuck said...: Whoever that young lady is who is to be attributed with that quote... God bless her.

It's the first original, interesting thing I have heard from anyone in her generation in recent memory. (I am presumptuously presuming what "her generation" is.)

I have no idea what her politics are. She may be an Obamabot for all I know, notwithstanding her screen-name. Not knowing her personal politics just makes it all the better.; 10/15/14, 11:04 AM
Chuck said...: Original Mike said...
"While I always vote, I rarely vote every race on the ballot."

Tell that to the Crack Emcee.; 10/15/14, 11:06 AM
jacksonjay said...: I truly believe that traditionalguy is onto something original. Never heard that notion before. GOPs vote for rich guys? Hmmmmmm?

I keep coming back because I learn something every day. It's OVER! We are not a democracy! And, GOPs vote for the rich guy!

Oh yeah, WHITE PEOPLE SUCK, too!; 10/15/14, 11:07 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "I wish that there was a very quick and dirty civics quiz that people had to take before they could cast a vote. But I guess that would be too exclusionary and elitist."

Right. That would be reminiscent of things done in the past that really were racist.

What I am trying to do is give respect to nonvoters. People who haven't shown interest in or become informed about the election deserve to be treated with dignity, including the people who find the issues too hard to understand. It shouldn't be that you're not allowed to vote on some theory that you're not good enough or don't deserve it, but that you are not required to vote and there's nothing to be ashamed of if you choose not to vote. That too is a kind of vote.

In the case of racial minorities, it could be some kind of protest against the Democratic Party which relies too much on the idea that they won't vote for the Republican. How does the Democratic Party serve any relevant interests of the groups it takes for granted? Abstaining from voting may be the closest you can get to a protest.; 10/15/14, 11:07 AM
Tank said...: Years ago I answered the phone and it was a polling company (which was much less ubiquitous back then). They wanted to ask me some political questions. I said OK.

First, they had some background questions - who were my current Senators (NJ) - who was my current Representative - who was the Vice President.

I answered each, and the poll taker stopped, and told me, "I've been doing this for years and you're the first person to ever get those questions all right."

So, only Tank should be allowed to vote in NJ.

============================

Mrs. Tank does not vote. Her reason: they're all corrupt (or as she likes to say, "indictable").; 10/15/14, 11:11 AM
Alex said...: Crack.. meet padded room.
Padded room... meet Crack.

May you both have a nice life together.; 10/15/14, 11:12 AM
trumpintroublenow said...: Only Nevada has a "none of the above" option to distinguish those who are too lazy from those who care but think all the choices suck. Makes sense but unsurprisingly neither major party likes it.; 10/15/14, 11:15 AM
Chuck said...: Some of the comments above are fascinating. Like the comment to the effect that the high-profile national elections are ones she or he feels competent to vote in, but the local candidates are so unknown, that lots of voters won't even cast a vote in those elections.

How odd. I'm not judging here; because who could fail to empathize with that attitude? We all watch our media of choice, all of which are mostly obsessed with the same handful of giant issues, all of them discussed in binary ways. None of which address local issues very much. So we know absolutely everything there is to know, about Sarah Palin and Elizabeth Warren, neither of whom will likely ever represent any of us. But we know next to nothing about the Circuit Court Judge who would determine our fate in a felony allegation, a major lawsuit, a divorce, or other public litigation.; 10/15/14, 11:16 AM
Achilles said...: This is why we should have a government with limited powers. Most of us don't want to read about the slime and filth that emanates from our government. We shouldn't have to worry about it as much as we do.

If we had a government that dealt with national defense and managed interstate commerce we could stay home and watch the football game. But we have a government with hundreds of agencies, a budget where more than 2/3rds of the outlays are checks to private individuals, and governments at various levels take over half my income.

I am all for having only people who pay taxes and veterans vote. We are well past the point where people are just voting for taking other people's money.; 10/15/14, 11:20 AM
wendybar said...: Voting "present" is how we got Obama. How much did anybody really know about his politics. He was black, so we had to vote for change. Anybody who was awake would have seen it, if they weren't blinded by BushHate.; 10/15/14, 11:20 AM
jacksonjay said...: Lady Prof says "think of the phrase voting present". Bwhahahahahhahaha!

Many of US thought long and hard about the notion of an elected official repeatedly voting present 6 years ago. Elected officials are SUPPOSED to make the hard decisions. Many of YA'LL voted for the smile.; 10/15/14, 11:23 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Rock the Vote is really Vote for Democrats. Let's dispose of the myth that it's about getting people to vote, come what may.

Getting people to vote, come what may, is a silly goal. Voting is not itself a virtue. They hand out those little "I voted!" stickers at the polling places. It's like "I pooped today!"; 10/15/14, 11:24 AM
Rusty said...: October 15, 2014
Yesterday, I watched one episode of "The Daily Show" and one episode of "The Colbert Report," and immediately afterwards bought the new books of the 2 authors I'd seen interviewed.

That was weird, although I see the connection to my long-time habit of feeling the need to buy 2 things if I'm going to buy 1 thing. I don't have a problem buying nothing, but 1 seems to require 2.

Here's the video of Matt Bai on "The Daily Show," pushing "All the Truth Is Out: The Week Politics Went Tabloid."

Here's the video of Walter Isaacson on "The Colbert Report," pushing "The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution."

Click for more »
Posted by Ann Althouse at 10:57 AM 1 comments
Tags: 2008 campaign, American Idol, analogies, arachnids, audiobooks, books, celebripolitics, Gary Hart, Matt Bai, McCain, McCain post-mortem, Sarah Palin, sleep, The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, TV
"People, young or old, who don't know the issues, budget battles, or the current state of regulations and policy should NOT vote."

"Ever. I don't care what Rock the Vote or anyone else says. It's not your 'civic duty' to be a dipshit voter. Stay home if you don't know what the hell you're voting for."

Sorta puts the kaibosh on the whole democrat get-out-the-vote thing. They kinda depend on dumbshits filling in the little boxes.; 10/15/14, 11:25 AM
Chuck said...: Althouse quotes a commenter and then replies:
"'I wish that there was a very quick and dirty civics quiz that people had to take before they could cast a vote. But I guess that would be too exclusionary and elitist.'

"Right. That would be reminiscent of things done in the past that really were racist."

Well, not really. Poll taxes and such were not designed to fairly test anyone. They were designed to exclude based on race, which is an invidiously discriminatory action under the Constitution, with race being a suspect classification warranting strict scrutiny.

A true, fair, evenhanded literacy and civics examination would be a far different matter, from any of the tests or taxes that typified Jim Crow.

Quite naturally, I expect that a rational, unbiased, reasonably-crafted civics test would have a very uneven effect in the real electorate. And that many, many more poor and minority voters would be effectively excluded. But again, that's a different matter.; 10/15/14, 11:25 AM
jacksonjay said...: "Rock the Vote" with Lil Wayne and Lil Lena (smarter than Ricky, fat lil lena in her underwear).

Enough said.; 10/15/14, 11:30 AM
CWJ said...: Nona pod wrote -

"I wish that there was a very quick and dirty civics quiz that people had to take before they could cast a vote."

I just renewed my driver's license and couldn't help imagine the following.

"Welcome to the 5th precinct. Please press your forehead against the pad and read the first line."

"Uh... d r i d r"

"Good, now how many branches of government do you see?"

"Uh. 3?"

"Good, here's your ballot."; 10/15/14, 11:32 AM
Anonymous said...: The society of The Vagina as Fascist State does not require your vote, only your submission.; 10/15/14, 11:32 AM
SteveR said...: I think we should keep voting like we have been, its working out just fine.; 10/15/14, 11:32 AM
Jman said...: You could pass a civics test and still not know a damn thing about current issues affecting the electorate.

And who would create this test?

Conservatives thought the voters were stupid for electing Bill Clinton.

Liberals thought voters were stupid for electing G.W. Bush.

Conservatives thought voters were stupid for electing Obama.

And in 2016, many people will think the voters were stupid for electing Candidate Whoever.

And the circle of life continues.

Meh.; 10/15/14, 11:39 AM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: It's not your "civic duty" to be a dipshit voter.

Very well put. Thank you.

- HammondX; card carrying Libertarian.; 10/15/14, 11:40 AM
Bob Boyd said...: I like this idea of making it OK to abstain. Low information voters are not necessarily stupid or uneducated people.
The problem is how do convince someone they are in the low info category? People don't want to see themselves this way.
In fact, the desire to think well of themselves often leads people to feel good about being only partially informed. The John Stewart demographic.
As is often demonstrated on this blog, even journalists, who position themselves as authorities, frequently don't really understand the issues they are writing about.
And there is a huge industry whose sole purpose is to mislead voters. The line between this industry and journalism has become almost indistinguishable at times.
Misinformed voters are a bigger problem than uninformed voters.; 10/15/14, 11:41 AM
Original Mike said...: @Chuck (11:16am)

Circuit Court Judge- Vote
County Coroner - Rarely vote; 10/15/14, 11:42 AM
jacksonjay said...: Good News. Twice elected, present voter, Swaggy Smiles has cancelled his fundraisers for today.

He was be hosting an Ebola photo-op at the White House.; 10/15/14, 11:43 AM
JackWayne said...: Considering that Florida voting officials felt competent judging the intent of poor voters (hanging chads), I firmly believe that someone somewhere is competent to judge the intent of non-voters.; 10/15/14, 11:44 AM
Jman said...: I'd be curious to know Libertarian Girl's criteria for a non-dipshit voter. Someone who thinks the way she thinks and votes the way she votes?; 10/15/14, 11:44 AM
Chuck said...: One of the comments at Libertarian Girl's Facebook page:

"My father voted republican for 85 years till he died....now he votes democrat."; 10/15/14, 11:52 AM
Jman said...: An alternative: A truly well-informed, well educated voter, may very well decide that it is best to abstain from voting.; 10/15/14, 11:52 AM
Anonymous said...: What a voter should be saying is "I studied the issues, I understand what's going on, and I support X".

If you can't say that, don't vote.; 10/15/14, 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: What a voter should be saying is "I studied the issues, I understand what's going on, and I support X".

Well, sure. Why should the people they're voting for get to do all the lying?; 10/15/14, 11:58 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: People shouldn't vote in their own self-interest? If the Crats are giving me a couple hundred bucks of free grub every month, thereby freeing up money for my addiction/alchoholism/daytime television viewing, I shouldn't vote for them? Absurd.; 10/15/14, 12:03 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Crack said...But this new effort to stop people from voting?

New? New?!?! Does 400 years of oppression sound like some new fad you?! Goddamn ignorant commenters, always ignoring what they dont' like. Four centuries of American murder and degredation (before there was even an America, somehow!) and this simple fool is jabbering about how voter suppression still has that new car smell. Disgusting.; 10/15/14, 12:06 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...Think of the phrase "voting present."

Registering an opinion by not voting is certainly a valid option and should be taken into consideration when we talk about what the nation wants or feels, sure. But an individual choosing not to vote and an elected official voting present are in no way the same thing--in intent, meaning, and import they are so different this inapt comparison masks your earlier (correct) point.; 10/15/14, 12:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Haha. I used to say bullshit like this when I was younger (and libertarian) and thoroughly convinced 1. Everyone was an idiot 2. Idiots didn't deserve rights.

I got over that.

I leave a good portion of my ballot blank, which takes a certain amount of self control and humility. I also cast conscious votes for reasons that would horrify some people, but are very valid to me. I've cast votes that I've regretted in hindsight. Whether they were cast on impulse or from a fully vetted and responsibly informed position made little difference.

And, should it need to be said, you really don't have a full vote until you can decide the agenda, rather than choose between items on a menu other vested interests devised.; 10/15/14, 12:11 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Bob Boyd said...I mean what's to prevent some unscrupulous person from abstaining 3 or 4 times?

That made me chuckle, Bob; thanks.
Imagine the operatives combing Chicago graveyards searching for names to add to their abstention rolls! Dead hand of the past indeed. How would the Founders not-vote?; 10/15/14, 12:13 PM
Rumpletweezer said...: If you are a federal employee or get money from the federal government, you should not be able to vote in federal elections. If you are an employee of your local municipality or get money from your local municipality, you should not be able to vote in local elections.; 10/15/14, 12:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Every vote abstained is a vote for The Vagina as Fascist State. Don't kid yourselves.; 10/15/14, 12:32 PM
damikesc said...: He's right.

County Coroner - Rarely vote

Sadly, locally, there was a coroner years ago who labelled all deaths as being caused by heart attack since the heart stopped beating.

If you are a federal employee or get money from the federal government, you should not be able to vote in federal elections. If you are an employee of your local municipality or get money from your local municipality, you should not be able to vote in local elections.

I agree. Voting for your own bosses should never be legal.; 10/15/14, 12:42 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: By the way, the idea that it may not be rational to cast a vote is not a new one in public choice theory nor economics generally. Here is a Wikipedia article on the Paradox of Voting citing a paper from 1957. Here is an article on abstention in general.; 10/15/14, 12:47 PM
great Unknown said...: How about we first apply this to the "You have to pass it to find out what's in it" Congress.; 10/15/14, 12:49 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: rehajm ,

"This is not a unique opinion amongst black males, though many came out and voted for Obama. Twice.

Will they be motivated to vote for a 69 year old white woman?"

Oh yeah - Hillary's got this one locked.

Blacks are happy to do our part,....; 10/15/14, 12:51 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: HoodlumDoodlum,

"New? New?!?! Does 400 years of oppression sound like some new fad you?!"

I said it was a new "effort" - not a new tactic or even a "new" Jim Crow:

Just more of the same,...; 10/15/14, 12:53 PM
Original Mike said...: "But an individual choosing not to vote and an elected official voting present are in no way the same thing..."

I'm assuming (hoping) it was a joke.; 10/15/14, 1:08 PM
n.n said...: It doesn't matter who votes, but who counts the votes. Disenfranchisement occurs without accountability.

Also, as others have pointed out, the conflicts of interest are numerous and diverse, including: Welfare Street, Wall Street, and Obamacare.; 10/15/14, 1:10 PM
Original Mike said...: "If you are a federal employee or get money from the federal government, you should not be able to vote in federal elections. If you are an employee of your local municipality or get money from your local municipality, you should not be able to vote in local elections."

Especially school boards.; 10/15/14, 1:13 PM
Original Mike said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/15/14, 1:21 PM
Original Mike said...: "I wish that there was a very quick and dirty civics quiz that people had to take before they could cast a vote. "

Writing this quiz is trivial: Did you vote for Obama in 2012?; 10/15/14, 1:21 PM
garage mahal said...: Walker is going to need all the uninformed voters he can get. Race tied at 47-47!; 10/15/14, 1:42 PM
Bilwick said...: Wow. That would cause about 75% of people who voted for Obama to stay home on Election Day. Maybe liberty could have a chance, then.; 10/15/14, 1:51 PM
William said...: Can the Ebola quarantined cast a vote? Do they need special quarantined voting sites?.......I consume more political news now than when I was younger. My judgement isn't especially more acute or wise because of this, but I'm better informed. I'm definitely more conservative now than when I was younger, and I definitely vote more often. I would have thought that as the boomers grew there would have been a drift to the right, but it hasn't happened.; 10/15/14, 2:13 PM
ALP said...: RE: not voting.

I have long held the opinion that freedom in the US includes the option to keep your distance from the government, to minimize its involvement in your life, to the extent that the law allows. Pay your taxes, obey laws unless they are clearly unjust (have to leave room for civil disobedience when necessary), and be a respectful citizen.

But its perfectly ok to be completely withdrawn from the process if you are disgusted with the options.; 10/15/14, 2:24 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: We should also have NOTA as a ballot choice for each public office.

If "None of the Above" gets the majority of votes, the office goes unfilled.; 10/15/14, 3:03 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: I said it was a new "effort" - not a new tactic or even a "new" Jim Crow:

Just more of the same,...

Gotcha, obviously "new effort" means "more of the same," I don't know why I didn't pick up on that. After all, new=same, up=down, black=white...wait, no, strike that last one, damn.; 10/15/14, 3:27 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: The Crack Emcee said...The nonvoter is saying I don't like any of you people."

That's what I said when Romney ran - I stopped voting right there and haven't looked back.

You people? YOU PEOPLE? Wow, just right there in the open with it, huh? As soon as I find the right form--reported!; 10/15/14, 3:35 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: HoodlumDoodlum,

"Gotcha, obviously "new effort" means "more of the same," I don't know why I didn't pick up on that."

I don't either, since we're talking about poll taxes, the box test, literacy tests, and all the rest. They keep changing the tactics and - with each new effort - coming back for more, but why they're doing so is always the same:

To keep blacks from voting.

While they also claim to be trying to attract us to the Right side of the ledger.

Just schizophrenic as all get-out,...; 10/15/14, 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm of the opinion that we should make it more difficult to vote. Make the vote worth something.

As an example, require an annual test, in which you must score at least 30% or better (Must get right 3 in 10 questions) to pass and receive your voter registration.

The questions should be something along the lines of, "What is your first name? What is your last name? What is your address? What is your birthdate?"

Etc.

The main purpose of the test is to weed out that who don't care enough to even come and take the test.; 10/15/14, 4:19 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: What do Black people have against poll taxes, anyhow? They are 12% of the population and they vote in a block. It's not like they are great fans of one-man, one-vote.; 10/15/14, 5:15 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: The Crack Emcee said...
I said it was a new "effort" - not a new tactic or even a "new" Jim Crow. 10/15/14, 12:53 PM

They keep changing the tactics and - with each new effort - coming back for more, but why they're doing so is always the same 10/15/14, 3:51 PM

Around 1pm it's not a new tactic but around 4pm whites keep changing tactics (with each new effort). I guess they're changing to old tactics, even though this tactic isn't one of the old ones you listed. Which would seem to make it new. But it's not new. It's a new change to an old tactic in the new effort. And then to other old tactics, but not the same old tactics that used to be used. Also not to new ones.
Perfectly clear.
I just don't want my lack of, you know, swagger with language to distract from the issue or threaten to change the subject. Like whites always do! It's an old tactic, and I don't want a new effort to give it new life.; 10/15/14, 5:41 PM
n.n said...: With a multi-trillion dollar welfare economy, excluding contributory entitlements, how is it possible that any American is indigent, homeless, unidentified, or uneducated? Someone is lying and skimming.; 10/15/14, 6:34 PM
furious_a said...: The nonvoter is saying I don't like any of you people. Or maybe he's saying something else.

Like "I forgot where my polling station was" or "The election was yesterday?" or else he's still asleep.; 10/15/14, 10:54 PM
furious_a said...: What I am trying to do is give respect to nonvoters.

The problem with being a non-voter is that it doesn't free one from paying taxes or getting a cavity search by the TSA. One is still stuck with the outcome, unable to truly opt out.

"NAAYP" -- Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of You People.; 10/15/14, 11:02 PM
Dad Bones said...: On election day my black g/f will not only disregard my reasoned advice to stay home but will walk into her precinct and vote the exact opposite as I would have her do if she insists on doing it.

I think that black people have even surpassed whites when it comes to putting bad people in office. There's still a chance for them to redeem themselves and avoid the taint that whites have acquired if they'll just stay home on election day, but I've had no success in making that case.; 10/16/14, 9:46 AM