You only get to complain if you voted

[smileyeagle1021]

The variation I heard on this today actually was "you voted for Obama, you can't complain about him."
Oh yes I can, and so can anyone else who voted for or against him. I looked at two candidates and I had to decide whether I wanted the kick to land squarely on my nads or squarely on my tailbone... and frankly, if I know I'm getting kicked one way or the other, I'd rather get kicked in the tailbone, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to bitch and moan (and rightfully so) about the fact that I have to get kicked in the first place. Also, a lot has changed since 2008, both in my own life and in the nation, and even if I thought it was a good idea back in 2008 doesn't mean that I haven't changed my mind in the last 5 years.

[HYHYBT]

Right. We also have secret ballots, so unless they tell you, you don't know how or whether the complainer voted, nor does that usually affect the validity of the complaint.

[protege]

Typically, the ones who don't vote but bitch about the outcome aren't doing anything else constructive to influence the political scene in any way. Those are the people who have no real "right" to complain - they don't like the situation, but they do nothing to change the situation.

I see plenty of this in my city. Pittsburgh has been controlled by the (and I'm not trying to bash the party, OK?) Democrats since the 1930s. Every election, the same people keep getting to keep their jobs. No matter how badly the scandal or how badly the city gets fucked up...you can't get rid of them. Some of these fools have multiple generations of their families get into politics...and stay there. City residents bitch about taxes, the crime in some areas, traffic, and all sorts of other shit. None of it will ever change as long as they keep the same people and party in power. Guess that's why...out in the 'burbs our roads aren't falling apart, there's very little crime, and why we don't have many "career politicians." That is, when they fuck up, we throw them out

[PepperElf]

In fact, I think that we should have mandatory voting. Have it in a way that makes voting totally accessible for everyone, and have it in a way that people are able to turn in a ballot of "Nobody" or "Fishsticks," but I always felt that having an opt-out system is always better for getting stuff done than an opt-in.

i don't mind this... as long as we have a better system to prevent multiple votes - as well as preventing anyone from being forced to "opt out" as well.

and that any election where voter fraud is proven, the election outcome itself can be revisited.


although perhaps one of the best ways to ensure mandatory voting would be to tie it to ID cards perhaps.

I think the only people who have the right to complain about the results who haven't voted are the ones who can't vote for reasons beyond their control

that part itself can be a good point though. i know some who couldn't vote in the last election because they were working and nowhere near their homes ... and afaik they didn't qualify for 'absentee ballot'.

which reminds me, absentee ballots should of course be counted and never tossed aside either

[Nekojin]

which reminds me, absentee ballots should of course be counted and never tossed aside either

Typically, absentee ballots are counted in total (how many there are, not who the votes are for), and are only opened, sorted, and counted by vote if there's any chance that they could affect the outcome. It's a waste of everyone's time if there's 13k absentee ballots, but the race without the absentee ballots has a 20k gap between the winner and runner-up.

[smileyeagle1021]

It's a waste of everyone's time if there's 13k absentee ballots, but the race without the absentee ballots has a 20k gap between the winner and runner-up.

No it's not... even though there is no way the person can lose, it is important for them to know how much support they actually had... a 51% win shows the candidate that they need to be more willing to compromise with the views of the person they were running against more than if they get a 60% win.

[crashhelmet]

No it's not... even though there is no way the person can lose, it is important for them to know how much support they actually had... a 51% win shows the candidate that they need to be more willing to compromise with the views of the person they were running against more than if they get a 60% win.

Not to mention that not counting a vote does nothing but to reaffirm that their vote doesn't matter

[Andara Bledin]

Individually speaking, nobody's vote matters. It's only en masse that they gain meaning.

Then again, a grain of rice is as nothing to a hungry man, but a thousand grains becomes a meal.

And, if you want to twist things around, you can always make the counter-claim that those who refuse to vote are effectively disenfranchising their own allies who make the effort, but cannot reach critical mass because so many are too lazy to bother working with the system and then point to that failure as a cover for their own apathy.

[Hyena Dandy]

although perhaps one of the best ways to ensure mandatory voting would be to tie it to ID cards perhaps.

So you would support mandatory ID cards?

[SongsOfDragons]

So you would support mandatory ID cards?

I don't know if it counts as support per se, but I wouldn't have any issues personally. Could make things easier. Potentially ripe for abuse. Haven't looked into it in depth.

I still have my granddad's from the war. Just a piece of handwritten card, iirc ^^

[Andara Bledin]

I don't know if it counts as support per se, but I wouldn't have any issues personally

Voter ID requirements disenfranchises 1-2% of voters, overall, because we don't have a mandatory ID system, which is actually by design.

One of the things about freedom is that it leaves people free to do things that are against their own best interests.

If someone is so apathetic that they can't be bothered to get their asses to a polling place to vote, I wouldn't want them forced to do so when it's likely they'll just close their eyes and punch options at random, anyway.

However, I feel that once they choose to waive their right to vote, they also waive their right to bitch about the results.

[Rageaholic]

During the OWS protests, I had a math professor who offered his insight into the protests. He basically said that if they didn't want corporate executives getting all these tax breaks, then they shouldn't vote for politicians who give them tax breaks. I facepalmed because his "insight" assumes

-Everyone in the protests voted for the same person when the vote in the last few elections was almost split.

-That politicians actually live up to their promises when elected.

-There actually was a politician that was against tax breaks.

-That the people elected could actually do anything.

Even worse, he was saying basically the opposite of what was said here. That people who voted have no right to complain, but if you don't vote, you'll have people on the other side of the fence telling you the exact same thing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.