Is it ok to not vote...?

[ncjake]

I know a lot of people who still don't know who they're voting for and still haven't really seriously thought about it. I think these people shouldn't vote because they have absolutely no grasp of the responsibility that comes with voting.

Your thoughts?

[A18]

It's immoral to vote without knowing the facts, and knowing them well.

[raggage]

Why wouldn't you vote. Especially in this climate

[khirkhib]

Its always OK not to vote but people should be allowed to vote even if you think they are a moron.  It would not be good if someone was deciding if people were smart or not to vote. 

[John Dibble]

Why wouldn't you vote. Especially in this climate

Because both major party candidates are lackluster, worthless excuses for candidates in the eyes of many. Some see little difference betweent the two and can't decide which is the lesser evil. Also many people just don't think about third parties.

As to the 'moron vote' questions, I feel idiots shouldn't vote if they don't know the facts.

[Jens]

Everybody should vote. If you feel that you don't know enough it is always possible to vote blank. Making it legitimate not to vote (as it seems to be is some circles in USA) is to make it legitimate not to participate in the democracy. The low turnout is a serious problem and any acceptance of limiting access to voting or encourage people not to vote because of any reason is a threat to democracy

[Horus]

It's silly not to vote if you know what you are doing, but no one should be forced to, and if they don't know the facts, then I'd be scared to see their vote a lot of the time.

[John Dibble]

Everybody should vote. If you feel that you don't know enough it is always possible to vote blank. Making it legitimate not to vote (as it seems to be is some circles in USA) is to make it legitimate not to participate in the democracy. The low turnout is a serious problem and any acceptance of limiting access to voting or encourage people not to vote because of any reason is a threat to democracy

NO. Not everybody should vote. One of the problems with democracy, and voting in general, is that the vote of a complete moron is of exact equal value to the vote of an intelligent individual. Guess which one is more likely to screw up the system if he votes? And let me tell you, the apathetic, the stupid, and the ignorant far outnumber the knowledgeable and intelligent. But the apathetic, stupid, and ignorant are less likely to vote than those who actually know what they are doing, so that makes the intelligent vote more valuable and effective.

The greatest argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter.

[minionofmidas]

I'm a friend of compulsory voting (with reasonable exceptions), actually. If you don't like any of the options, cast a blank and run for office yourself the next time.
With a friend of mine, I once thought up a scenario where whoever hadn't voted would be rounded up by the police (or even the army) and forced to cast a ballot right away, sorta like when you miss a court date. Of course, that's destined to fail because there's not enough police/army to do that - and I'm mighty glad there isn't.

[patrick1]

I'm a friend of compulsory voting (with reasonable exceptions), actually. If you don't like any of the options, cast a blank and run for office yourself the next time.
With a friend of mine, I once thought up a scenario where whoever hadn't voted would be rounded up by the police (or even the army) and forced to cast a ballot right away, sorta like when you miss a court date. Of course, that's destined to fail because there's not enough police/army to do that - and I'm mighty glad there isn't.

What a very German idea Lewis.   People who are not informed should not vote.  They should certainly have the freedom to vote but they should also have the freedom not to vote.

[minionofmidas]

I'm a friend of compulsory voting (with reasonable exceptions), actually. If you don't like any of the options, cast a blank and run for office yourself the next time.
With a friend of mine, I once thought up a scenario where whoever hadn't voted would be rounded up by the police (or even the army) and forced to cast a ballot right away, sorta like when you miss a court date. Of course, that's destined to fail because there's not enough police/army to do that - and I'm mighty glad there isn't.

What a very German idea Lewis.   People who are not informed should not vote.  They should certainly have the freedom to vote but they should also have the freedom not to vote.

Said friend is Jewish.

[Jens]

Everybody should vote. If you feel that you don't know enough it is always possible to vote blank. Making it legitimate not to vote (as it seems to be is some circles in USA) is to make it legitimate not to participate in the democracy. The low turnout is a serious problem and any acceptance of limiting access to voting or encourage people not to vote because of any reason is a threat to democracy

NO. Not everybody should vote. One of the problems with democracy, and voting in general, is that the vote of a complete moron is of exact equal value to the vote of an intelligent individual. Guess which one is more likely to screw up the system if he votes? And let me tell you, the apathetic, the stupid, and the ignorant far outnumber the knowledgeable and intelligent. But the apathetic, stupid, and ignorant are less likely to vote than those who actually know what they are doing, so that makes the intelligent vote more valuable and effective.

The greatest argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter.

As you probably would guess I disagree (and that sentense is one of Churchills. He never liked democracy that much, mostly because the voters wouldn't do as he said). You don't sound like a supporter of democracy "the lesser of the bads" more like a supporter of Oligacy.
The basic idea is "one person, one vote." You might disagree with the motivations of some voters (fx: "X has a nicer wife, that is why I vote for him") but that does not invalidate their choises. Many countries have had high turnouts for decades (Denmark, Sweden and Norway between 80 and 90% the last 50 years) without hordes of "stupid" voters following the first the best demagog. Limiting the voting rights is the first step on the road to dictatorship and frankly I am quite surprised that a Libertarian would support such a thing

[minionofmidas]

Indeed, as any timeline analysis will show: The higher the turnout level, the smaller the swings.

[angus]

I'm a friend of compulsory voting (with reasonable exceptions), actually. If you don't like any of the options, cast a blank and run for office yourself the next time.
With a friend of mine, I once thought up a scenario where whoever hadn't voted would be rounded up by the police (or even the army) and forced to cast a ballot right away, sorta like when you miss a court date. Of course, that's destined to fail because there's not enough police/army to do that - and I'm mighty glad there isn't.

Now that's Gewalt.  (yiddish or german, take your pick.  I call 'em the same)

In siberia, ballots and ballots were ferried in just so that reindeer herders could vote.  Of course, it's not who you vote for, it's how the votes are counted.  right? 

I say YES.  I'd encourage everyone to become well-informed and to vote, but I'm not too keen on forcing votes. 

[The Dowager Mod]

I have no problem with people who don't vote.
i just think they need to shut up when they bitch about the outcome.

[YRABNNRM]

I have no problem with people who don't vote.
i just think they need to shut up when they bitch about the outcome.

Exactly.

[A18]

I'm also fine with people bitching about the outcome and not voting.