All my life I’ve been told I should vote. I’ve been told it’s my duty and obligation to vote. I’ve been told to rock the vote. Voting is the right thing to do. I’m not buying it. Voting is just like everything else: if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you just probably either learn or shut the hell up.
By and large, I’m politically apathetic. A little less so in the past few years, but for the most part, I’m still not one to spend a lot of time reading about the issues and candidates election day brings us. I’m not proud of this fact — but a fact it is, nonetheless. And yet, people say I should vote. I don’t get it. They want me to vote? I’m pretty much a complete idiot on every question on the ballot. Why do you want my opinion? The way I see it, I’d actually make the American public dumber by participating.
William E. Simon once said, âBad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don’t vote.â Maybe. But I assert that bad politicians are probably also sent to Washington by uneducated people who do vote.
So, on this election day in the States, I suggest you think about whether you’re really qualified to be voicing your thoughts on a given issue or candidate. Do you have an opinion one way or the other? Can you articulate why you hold said opinion? Does your opinion stem from real insight and thought you’ve given to the matter, rather than simple party affiliation? If you’re answering no to any of these questions, maybe you shouldn’t be voting. I know I won’t be.
If, on the other hand, you’re answering yes — please, go forth and vote. I trust you to make sound decisions for our country because you’ve taken the time to educate yourself. Perhaps next election I’ll join you. But for now, I’m confident you can handle it.
Like this
Comments
There are currently 112 comments on this entry. If you have something to say, please consider adding your own.
You can also subscribe to an RSS feed of this entry’s comments.
This entry’s tags
AuthenticJobs.com
- API Engineer
- Meetup
- New York, NY, US
- Web Developer
- Skidmore Studio
- Detroit, MI, US
- Developer, Foundry (Redmond, WA)
- msnbc.com
- Redmond, WA, US
- Web Designer/Developer
- Cappex.com - College Search Made Simple!
- Chicago, IL
- Creative Director
- Lime Company
- New York, NY, US
- Junior Designer/Production Artist (Print and Web)
- Working Assets/CREDO Mobile
- San Francisco
- Expert LAMP Developer
- Los Angeles, CA, US
- Junior Web Developer
- SankyNet
- New York, NY, US
- Senior Interactive Designer
- 21Tech, LLC
- Redwood City, CA
- UI Engineer
- Meetup
- New York, NY, US
001 // Nathan Borror // 11.07.2006 // 1:21 AM
An apathetic society scares the hell out of me. Voting is not just punching a hole through a piece of paper. It’s having a sense of the issues and direction of your government. This is why the Framers entrusted us with this act.
I think over the years partisanship has begun to cloud the real issues. It’s unfortunate but the only way to turn things around is to educate yourself and VOTE!
:)
002 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 1:24 AM
I agree — but say someone hasn’t educated themselves and it’s November 7th now — should they vote anyway, jut for the sake of voting, because that’s what everyone says they should do?
003 // Paul D // 11.07.2006 // 1:27 AM
I’ll go one further.
People sometimes say, well-intentionedly but ignorantly, that “if you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the result.”
I think the opposite is true. If you participate in a charade that discards morality in favour of popularity, that pits two equally incompetent, corrupt politicians against each other, you’re responsible for what the system produced regardless of how your vote went.
I’ve come to realize that people who vote are responsible for every mess since the establishment of majoritarianism. I’ve stopped voting, and it’s refreshing. Even though the government’s screw-ups might affect me, it’s no longer my fault or my problem.
004 // Nathan Borror // 11.07.2006 // 1:43 AM
You’ve got until 7pm. I believe the paper puts out an election day edition that covers all the ballot measures and candidates. Otherwise I hear there’s this thing called the Internets :)
005 // Sean Sperte // 11.07.2006 // 1:49 AM
So, based to what you’ve said, it would seem some sort of qualification (beyond age and citizenship) needs to be in place in order to vote. You know, some sort of knowledge-placement test, to see whether or not a citizen is adequately informed.
Is that true?
006 // Tomas Jogin // 11.07.2006 // 6:04 AM
Oh, forget it. It’s not like your vote is going to be counted anyways.
On a more serious note, I believe the US is on the brink of losing its democracy. It seems every democratic principle in America is being nibbled on; from the vote-eating Diebold machines, the repeated offences and loss of your civil liberties, to the (government) acceptance (aka redifinition) of torture. The only bastion of a free society you have left is your freedom of speech, and they’ve neutralized that weapon by drowning it out with propaganda. You are becoming a third-world country.
007 // Dale Cruse // 11.07.2006 // 6:18 AM
The band Rush sang: “And if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”
008 // Ryan Berg // 11.07.2006 // 7:10 AM
I still don’t know if I’m a Democrat. But I’m very much anti-Republican. That party makes my blood boil.
Regardless, as a student 600 miles from home with one year left here in Kansas, I’m in an awkward spot. I can vote here in Kansas, where I’m surrounded by the issues, but I only plan on being here for one more year. It’s not my state, why should I be a part of their election?
Back in Illinois, I have little to no knowledge of the race, and don’t know if I’ll be moving back there in a year’s time either.
Add those excuses to the fact that the whole political process just angers me, and it’s clear that I will not be voting today.
009 // Kevin // 11.07.2006 // 7:30 AM
If you don’t vote, then don’t complain about the results…
010 // Brian // 11.07.2006 // 7:32 AM
You act as if it is a huge task to become educated on the issues. So much so that you would rather allow some clueless idiot to make decisions that impact you. There may be a ton of political rhetoric, but I find it hard to believe that there are not issues out there you find important. Education, Crime, War, IP Law, Healthcare, Abortion, Free Speech, Privacy, Individual rights all are impacted through the political process. And on at least some of those issues there is a candidate that is more closely aligned with your values. It’s probably not going to be a perfect match, but seriously. Take an hour, learn about the candidates and vote. Maybe it won’t make a difference, bit it might and that’s why you do it.
011 // Kevin // 11.07.2006 // 7:36 AM
Bravo Brian
012 // Tomas Jogin // 11.07.2006 // 7:39 AM
Kevin: That line of reasoning works.. if you have a sound political system, which the US does not.
If your only choice is between being smitten with the black plague or cholera, and you choose neither, you are still very much allowed to complain if you get the plague.
If, on the other hand, you had a wider selection of illnesses to choose from, ranging from the common cold to immediate death, then, sure, you shouldn’t really complain about catching AIDS when you could have chosen a runny nose instead.
013 // J.D. // 11.07.2006 // 7:59 AM
I don’t feel uneducated on the issues so much as uneducated on how the candidates stand on the issues. You get bombarded daily by attaching ads and by the time it’s time to vote, you have no good grasp of the candidate’s positions. And then there is the issue of not having an acceptable candidate to choose from. Your stuck picking the lesser of two evils of not voting. I’m not voting this time because I don’t really believe in any of the candidates running. I don’t feel any of them truly (or even closely) represent my views.
014 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 8:01 AM
Err, I don’t think i said anything of the sort. I said people should police themselves and not taint a vote with uninformed opinions. Certainly I don’t believe there should be some other qualification for voting, and I’m not sure what gave you that idea.
As I said to Nathan, I definitely agree that this is the best plan. I’m all for learning, and maybe I’ll still do it before today’s election closes.
But that doesn’t change my opinion that if one doesn’t become informed then one should not vote. You’re talking about something different than I was writing about. To clarify my views…
Should people vote? Only if they are informed. Should people become informed? Absolutely. Am I a bad person because I am largely uninformed? No.
My only point is that all these people that go around telling me to vote should spend their time and effort telling me to become informed, otherwise they’re just sending idiots to the polls — and I’m doubtful that’s what they really want.
015 // Kevin // 11.07.2006 // 8:29 AM
Often people complain about the two party system; asserting candidates from each party are basically the same. When I am not thrilled with my choices of candidates, I rely on the party platform. Vote for whichever party ‘best’ fits your beliefs. Party affiliation still does mean something. While candidates may apear too similar, there are significant differences between the two parties.
I do believe we (Americans) have a duty to vote, and a duty to be minimally informed about our elections, candidates, and issues that face the country.
Don’t simply be a critic, get involved, and vote today. Don’t be the timid soul knowing neither victory nor defeat.
Yes, uninformed voters should vote too! If you don’t know about each and every issue, each and every platform (who really could??) then vote for the party that has best represented your beliefs in the past. Don’t simply rely on being a critic…
‘It is not the critic who counts, not the person who points out how the strong person stumbled or where the doer of deed could have done better.’
‘The credit belongs to the person who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself/herself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he/she fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his/her place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.’
016 // Jeff // 11.07.2006 // 8:43 AM
Heh, I knew the comments for this entry would be choice.
Jeff, nobody wants to hear your question. They want to answer the question you didn’t ask and chastise you out of habit because it’s midterm election day and they’re brimming with indignance.
Yes, you’re correct in my opinion, Jeff. If you fail to educate yourself for an hour or two by 7PM, you should not be voting. But hey, what do I know, I’m just a liberal commie free-thinking pinko.
017 // Fernando Lins // 11.07.2006 // 8:45 AM
Not voting is just another way of saying you don’t care about the people who run your city, state, province of country. This is the worst medium to talk about uneducated people, if you want to target those people and tell them not to vote, then a website is not the right place - most of us are intelligent enough to make the right decisions when voting. As Brian said, take an hour, learn about your candidates. One of them will have at least thing you agree with, and it is your right to elect someone who has the same objectives you do. Don’t tell people not to vote, it’s the worst thing you could do.
018 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 8:45 AM
But what if you don’t know which one does, because you haven’t taken the time to get informed? Should you vote anyway?
What if you don’t know which one has best represented your beliefs in the past?
Who is criticizing? Certainly not me. I definitely adhere to the “I didn’t vote, so I have no right to complain about our position” mentality. I am only urging people to re-think the idea that everyone should vote — and suggesting that instead, maybe the mantra should be “everyone should get informed.”
And yes, that includes me — I need to get informed, and I know this. But until I do, I don’t think I should vote.
019 // Baxter // 11.07.2006 // 8:47 AM
I just went to vote and got humbled. I like to think I’m a fairly educated voter. I keep up with the issues, I know what’s at stake, hell, I used to cover politics for the paper.
Then I get down to the smaller races… Annabeth Surbaugh? I know the name. Have no idea if it’s because I like her, she’s pissed me off in the past or if it’s just because she’s been kicking around for a long time. And the judges…. I feel really stupid voting whether or not some judge I’ve never heard of should keep his seat.
Sigh.
020 // Dave // 11.07.2006 // 8:49 AM
Wow, I couldn’t disagree more.
But off of that, it’s an interesting thought that you make, Jeff. It’s actually the argument that was used many moons ago that only land-owners were allowed to vote. It was assumed that those who owned land were the only ones who a) would have access to the education that was required to understand even the smallest function of the state, and b) was actually effected by the decisions made due to, well… almost a stock-ownership like role in the US.
There’s still an argument for that, but I’m not going to make it ;)
I do agree with those who have posted, though, that educating yourself doesn’t take long. For me, unfortunately, this particular election is about restoring some balance to the federal government, despite my somewhat right-wing leanings. What we have now, no matter how little you actually know, is not working.
021 // Kevin // 11.07.2006 // 9:13 AM
“What we have now, no matter how little you actually know, is not working.”
WHY? WHAT IS NOT WORKING?
I believe that more voters, regardless of if they are uninformed or not, is better for the country as a whole. The process of voting could result in you wanting to be better informed for the next election.
Even in today’s age, with all of the information available, it probably possible for people to be ignorant about candidates. However, I maintain that all of us have ‘tendencies’ toward one of the two political parties, and thus have enough information to cast a ‘legitimate’ vote.
While we may not have all of the specifics of each candidate, the political beliefs of our fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, friends, co-workers, teachers, etc., likely have had a large impart on your political beliefs (one way or another), and provide you enough of a value system to know which set of values is more closely aligned with your own.
022 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 9:13 AM
Dave, to be clear, it wasn’t me that said “Even though the government’s screw-ups might affect me, it’s no longer my fault or my problem.”
You’re probably right about that. But it is November 7th, so I remain doubtful that if you haven’t become infomed by now that you’ll be able to. Should I have gotten informed by now? Yes. But I didn’t. And if I don’t manage to by the time polls close, I still maintain it’s best if I just leave well enough alone.
Oh, I agree with that — but I’m not sure I know enough to suggest how we might be able to fix it.
023 // Nate K // 11.07.2006 // 9:45 AM
I agree with you 100%. Yes, I take the blame for NOT educating myself, but now that its time to vote - I won’t vote for votings sake. That is doing a dis-service overall, for I have NO idea the depth of the things I am voting for.
Overall, I don’t immerse myself in politics. Politics are everywhere, but for the most part just annoy me (at most levels).
024 // Paul D // 11.07.2006 // 10:07 AM
“Vote for whichever party ‘best’ fits your beliefs. Party affiliation still does mean something.”
This is the “ideal” you’re supposed to believe in, and the current system relies on most people thinking that way.
My humble view is: if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you get … evil.
I can 100% guarantee that whoever Americans vote for, only Republicrats and Demicans will get in. Congress will hold sessions and pass literally hundreds of new laws that none of the Congressmen read through, and each of which takes away a little more of your freedom a piece at a time.
If you vote, don’t complain about the results.
025 // Nick // 11.07.2006 // 10:15 AM
Great post and comments. I’ve never voted. Not because I don’t care, but for the same reason Jeff states…I’m not informed. I have no idea which political party aligns best with me. Why should I go for candidates I know absolutely nothing about? Until I become informed, I won’t be voting either.
We have the right to vote, but also the right not to vote.
026 // Dustin // 11.07.2006 // 10:21 AM
I’m in the same boat. I know nothing about politics (I don’t even think I could tell you the difference between a senate, congress, etc.) I’m not voting today, because I don’t have the brains to know what I should and shouldn’t vote for. I know there are people out there that do vote and will admit it was because of a tv ad they saw, which are full of BS to try and sway a viewer one way or another. In my opinion those who don’t know much about politics should not vote, because are you really doing someone a favor so you can wear a sticker that says you voted today?
027 // James Bennett // 11.07.2006 // 10:26 AM
You know, Jeff, if you’re not familiar with a candidate, that local newspaper you work for has been providing excellent coverage, including in-depth candidate profiles and helpful step-by-step “whose positions do you agree with” features.
I’m just saying…
028 // Rob Weychert // 11.07.2006 // 10:29 AM
Jeff, the polls are open until 7:00 tonight, and there are some great resources online that will allow you to educate yourself on the issues and the candidates in no time. I suggest starting at Smart Voter.
029 // James Asher // 11.07.2006 // 10:30 AM
If you’re completely uninformed about a particular party or candidate or issue, then you’re right, the best choice is not to vote.
However, I think that statement begs the question as to why a person is uninformed in the first place. It’s not that hard to become acceptably informed. Particularly for those of us who know what the internet is. Project vote-smart, http://www.vote-smart.org/, is a website that compiles information and views candidates. It has candidates from congressmen down to the state level and often times the city level. If you want to know your candidates views, just go look.
I think my point is simply that it’s not hard, nor time consuming, to become informed.
Furthermore, if you don’t vote - for whatever reason - you are subject to the actions of whomever does get elected. You may care, not care, or not know their views, but you have to live by what choices they make. Due to that fact alone, I would think you would want to take the short amount of time to find out what’s going on and make a difference.
As a quick addendum, if you’re one of those people who think one vote doesn’t matter, that’s a horribly pessimistic viewpoint.
030 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 10:38 AM
Looks like a good site. Thanks, Rob. Sadly, I’m not registered to vote, so there’s simply no way I personally can vote in this election. Hopefully it’ll help someone, though!
It does, and as I’ve said several times now, I definitely believe a person should try to become informed and get involved (even though I haven’t done so myself). I never said, or even suggested, that it was hard to get informed. I’m sure it’s not. But it’s still something you have to set out to do, and if you haven’t done it, then I think you should either do it, or not vote.
031 // James Asher // 11.07.2006 // 10:40 AM
So really, this is a post about how lazy Jeff is. :-)
032 // Natalie Jost // 11.07.2006 // 10:50 AM
Thanks, Jeff. And one more question to the pot: is it more important to the future and survival of the world that people continue to bear children, or that they learn to be parents?
033 // Keith // 11.07.2006 // 10:56 AM
I would add that if your preacher, teacher, S.O., mom, dad, friend, blogger etc. is telling you who to vote for and you’re thinking about just blindly doing as they say — please, please, just don’t. As Jeff says, take the time to make sure the choices you make are right for you and if you vote make your vote your own, not someone elses.
034 // Kevin // 11.07.2006 // 11:13 AM
In the state I live in, Minnesota, you can register at the polling location. Simply bring your driver’s license and a copy of a utility bill from your dwelling, and presto, you can vote.
I find it amazing and unbelievable that some members of such an audience could have no views on the political parties, or the candidates of their respective state in play today.
Election Day, and citizens have yet to investigate, or consider who or they are voting?? Wow! Perhaps procrastination would be a good topic to discuss next’¦
035 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 11:39 AM
I asked some friends, and was told I couldn’t do this here.
You act as if it’s somehow my job, or my duty to educate myself such that I can vote. That’s not true. I personally think I probably should have, but no where does the law say I have to vote. Voting is a right, and we have the right to not vote, as well.
One coworker called me a “pathetic excuse for an American” today after they read this post. I find this horribly offensive. Because I choose not to exercise a right that is entirely optional, I’m a “pathetic excuse for an American?”
To that attitude, I can only say “Kiss my ass.”
036 // James Asher // 11.07.2006 // 12:05 PM
I think I’ve come up with a decent analogy for not voting:
It’s like going into a restaurant and ordering ‘food’, not any specific food or any food that you may want, but just ‘food’.
If you’re just hungry and don’t care what you get, then you’re fine, however if you care at all about what kind of food you’re getting, then you’ll read the menu.
Note, I’m not saying you should vote, I’m just making an analogy.
As for being a pathetic excuse for an American, I don’t think so. Not voting completely embraces the ideals of being American. By choosing not to vote, you’re still making a choice.
Regardless, Jeff, you still haven’t stated why you haven’t spent the minimal effort to become informed.
037 // Nicholas del Castillo // 11.07.2006 // 12:49 PM
“all these people that go around telling me to vote should spend their time and effort telling me to become informed, otherwise they’re just sending idiots to the polls”
Jeff, put that on a t-shirt, and I’ll buy one. Brilliant, and perfectly said. I couldn’t agree more.
038 // Kevin // 11.07.2006 // 12:56 PM
Of course you do not “have” to vote; however, not voting is a choice only for indifference and apathy. Good luck with that.
“Not voting completely embraces the ideals of being American.”
Perhaps not voting only embraces or exposes the lazy American… not simply the uninformed American.
039 // Collin // 11.07.2006 // 1:03 PM
The effect that my single vote has on my life is not worth the amount of effort (though small) that I must make in becoming informed about “the issues.” Instead, I spend my time working on becoming a better person, which has a direct and significant impact on my life.
040 // Keith // 11.07.2006 // 1:17 PM
Jeff — My guess is that in the time you spent writing this post and engaging with the comments, etc. you could have educated yourself about the issues, candidates, etc. that might be important to you.
On thing to note with voting is that you don’t need to vote on everything. I mean if you come up to a city council race you know nothing about, skip it. But making the effort to become informed enough to vote about some things isn’t all that difficult.
I agree 100% that people shouldn’t vote if they don’t know what they’re voting for, but I also think it doesn’t take a ton of time or effort to become reasonably informed on the important things.
If you’re registered you probably still have time today to do that.
041 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 1:17 PM
That’s because it’s completely irrelevant to my point, as my point deals with what happens after you’ve not become informed and it’s too late to do so.
But if you really must know, there’s only one good explanation for my not being informed: apathy. Am I proud of that? No. But, it is what it is. I’m simply never cared enough to do so.
042 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 1:28 PM
Oh snap! :)
Seriously, tough — you’re right. And I actually did start to do just that, until someone reminded me that it’s too late to register, anyway.
Good point.
I concur.
I’m not. :(
043 // Charles // 11.07.2006 // 1:38 PM
Wow - Every two years we are faced with the daunting task of spending several hours analyzing proposed increases in the money taken from our paychecks, and proposed new laws and initiatives that use the money I am feeding into the system.
Every two years we are faced with the impossible initiative of spending a few hours reading about given candidates, from several different parties, and deciding which one will best lead our government.
Here’s a question: What would happen if more than half of the population took the several hours necessary to learn about the individuals and propositions involved, that have been known for months in advance, and actually voiced their concern in the form of a ballot — every two years?
Could it be that then we would have a wider selection than democrat and republican? Could it be that we might end up with a population that isn’t so lazy that they can’t take the initiative to look into things, and voice their concern over things, that actually do affect them? Even if it means I pay $20 a month to the state instead of $18, I care about what they’re using that extra $2 for — or voting for a Democrat in part due to the foray of hypocritical corrupt Republicans making their scandalous web of arrogance and hatred an alleged “family value,” despite not necessarily knowing all about that Democrat.
So, no, you shouldn’t vote if you’re too callous and lazy to care. But in the meantime your money is going to be spent on wars, taxation imposed by corporations and special interests, destruction of civil liberties, etc etc. All because half of Americans think it’s too hard to read about a couple dozen of candidates, and even fewer propositions to our governing laws. You will never see change if you don’t bother to take time to initiate it.
044 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 1:45 PM
Surprisingly, it seems like almost everyone agrees with my point. I was sure there’d be some dissent from this post!
045 // Dan Boland // 11.07.2006 // 1:47 PM
I’ve never heard a valid excuse for not voting — they all sound like cop-outs to me. Not hear to browbeat, just offering my two cents.
046 // Nathan Smith // 11.07.2006 // 1:55 PM
What I want to see is a politician who cares about the big issues: You know, HTML 5.0 vs. XHTML 2.0! Or perhaps Net neutrality, if we’re actually talking about the real-world. My view on voting is this: You’re not voting in favor of a good candidate. You’re just trying to pick out the lesser of two evils.
047 // Natalie Jost // 11.07.2006 // 2:08 PM
Sorry, Nathan, I hate that saying. I choose no evil!
048 // Derek K. Miller // 11.07.2006 // 2:19 PM
Jeff, I live in Canada, and in my bits of spare time examining the news and looking at world affairs, I feel like I would be comfortable voting in your election, in your constituency, today, if I were eligible. Which of course I’m not, since I’m Canadian.
So, okay, your point is if you don’t feel like you know enough, you shouldn’t vote (and can’t anyway). That’s fine, it’s too late, this election is over for you, and you’ve likely made the right decision.
But becoming sufficiently well informed is not difficult, nor even especially time consuming. You’re a smart guy, you’ve mastered difficult technical subjects, you have a good job, you have relationships with people, you like to go out and have fun and post photos to Flickr. You’re not an isolated hermit with no interest in the world.
So, my suggestion: next election, in 2008, take some of the time you would have spent tweaking your blog template, or having a few drinks at the bar, or washing your car, and learn enough about the issues and candidates to be able to cast your vote. After all, the people who get elected are the ones who decide what kind of regulations govern your Internet access, when the bar’s open, and how much your car and the fuel for it costs.
And also, alas, whether when you express a controversial opinion, you might get thrown in jail (perhaps one nobody knows about) one day.
These are real issues, and you have the option to influence how they go. In 2008, if all you’ve decided is “Bush screwed up” or “he did a great job” and cast only a vote in the electoral college and no other race, you’ll have done something valuable. You are not obligated (like Australians), but you have the privilege (unlike many people in the world, who often suffer for it), and I think you should take up the challenge, which is not a daunting one.
049 // Pedro Marshall // 11.07.2006 // 2:34 PM
If you’re not going to vote, then what you probably should do is shut up and stop writing about irrelevant nonsense. Focus on the more important issues, such as your future design conference travels. You’re given the rare opportunity to have some say in your government, a freedom that, like most Americans, you take for granted. So much so that you even take time out of your day to write a post on your blog about why you shouldn’t vote.
I’m not buying it.
050 // reese // 11.07.2006 // 2:40 PM
Like Natalie, I chose no evil. I refuse to vote for a ‘lesser’ of a particular evil. I didn’t vote in the 2004 election for this reason and will likely not be found voting for a long time to come.
I don’t understand where the righteousness over HAVING to vote comes from. If Jeff feels he shouldn’t vote, does that somehow make him morally corrupt? Why are we judging people for not voting? Instead, why aren’t we examining why they do not?
Indeed, while an apathetic society is a frightening one, a society of people who go to vote simply because they are told it is their ‘duty’ and without any prior knowledge of what and whom they are voting for (or against) is, in my mind, just as frightening.
While I view voting as a priviledge, I also don’t see any candidates or issues at the moment who are ‘priviledged’ enough to receive my vote. By not voting, I make a statement in and of itself—in my case, not of apathy, but of disgust over the ‘illusion’ of choices we are given. I don’t vote not because I dont care, but because I DO care.
051 // Anne Oskam // 11.07.2006 // 2:52 PM
You are dividing the process of voting into ‘getting informed’ and ‘punching a hole’ and only calling the latter voting. To me this is like limiting design to making a nice drawing but leaving the part out where you try to discover what your client really needs. Getting informed is an integral part of voting. Your separation between the act and the required preparation feels theoretical, invented to justify not reacting to a moral obligation you still experience.
052 // Brian Ford // 11.07.2006 // 3:01 PM
I think you’re confusing what people mean when they say that you should vote.
I think “you should vote” means you should take the time (which, as has been mentioned, would not take that much time) to inform yourself so that you can make an educated choice at the polls. I -do not- think that “you should vote” means that you should vote whether you’re informed or not.
In other words, I think that you’re sort of arguing against a straw-man. The number of people who want ignorant know-nothings to vote is probably pretty miniscule. (That number is certainly outweighed by the number of people who would like everyone to make an effort to be more informed -and- to turn out.)
Do uneducated people (as far as the issues) vote? Of course. All the more reason to educate yourself and vote.
If you’re not going to vote, then what you probably should do is shut up and stop writing about irrelevant nonsense.
That’s written with a bit more venom than I would have mustered but I sort of agree with him in spirit. This article sort of comes off as though you -want- people to argue against you and I think (as you’ve found) that you’re going to have a hard time finding that argument.
I think the important factor is that (at your age and based on what I know about you) there are most certainly issues that you ought to be concerned about and taking an active role in the political landscape is something that you -ought- to be interested in. (Especially considering the minimal effort involved.) Participating in the process is not the same thing as arguing politics — and I suspect the latter is what you really hate.
053 // Brian Ford // 11.07.2006 // 3:10 PM
I don’t understand where the righteousness over HAVING to vote comes from. If Jeff feels he shouldn’t vote, does that somehow make him morally corrupt? Why are we judging people for not voting? Instead, why aren’t we examining why they do not?
Of course not — though your reasons for not voting are very different than Jeff’s stated reasons.
I would tend to sympathize more with someone who takes your position — researches the candidates and finds that they cannot support either — than Jeff’s, which is essentially — I declined to inform myself so stop asking me to vote unless you want me to do so based on ignorance of the issues.
As I mention in my last comment — no one wants him to do so, though people do want him to research the issues and become informed — and then choose to vote or not. I agree with those who feel a bit as though Jeff is looking for an excuse to validate apathy at this point.
054 // Arthur Case // 11.07.2006 // 3:13 PM
Jeff I this article really gets to me. The right to vote is something many people across the world fight and die for. It’s one of the excuses your President gives for invading and occupying Iraq - democracy. Amazing people such as Aung San Suu Kyi fight there entire lives just so ordinary people in their countries have the chance to vote.
I would suggest the votes of people in the USA have more impact on what happens to the world than in any other country.
If you have had the time to write this post, you surely should have spent the time more wisely and done some research instead and made sure to use your very powerful vote, something that right now in other parts of the world people are suffering to get for themselves.
055 // Jason // 11.07.2006 // 3:17 PM
The problem I have with voting, at least for offices, is the whole “lesser of two evils”. The two party system, as its called, is that there are two groups who are large enough to always win. If I don’t want either of the big runners, my only choice is to vote for one of the smaller groups, but that is basically “throwing away my vote,” because their not big enough to win.
I wonder what would happen if a “None of the above” choice was added? If “None of the above” wins, would we have another election?
056 // Arthur Case // 11.07.2006 // 3:17 PM
Please excuse my grammar above - I got a little flustered and my hands couldn’t keep up with my brain :o)
057 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 3:23 PM
Good point.
Indeed. I don’t have any objection to participating in the process at all — instead, I would have liked to have participated. But, I failed to make the time for the preparation (which is regrettable, I know), and I think that sort of disqualifies my vote from being worthwhile.
Point taken.
Sorry.
And I’ve been clear that I agree with you. I should have taken the time. My only point was that since I didn’t, I shouldn’t go vote today. Seems like most people agree with that point, so maybe there’s not so much to discuss here.
My answer to every person here who says, “It’s not that hard, you should have taken the time, you shouldn’t be apathetic, etc.” is pretty simple: “I know. Sorry.”
058 // Sean Sperte // 11.07.2006 // 3:35 PM
So my second question (following up the first) is: Do you trust every other apathetic American to follow your example of not voting at all?
If not, how can you honestly choose not to vote and feel secure in your freedoms? If “idiots” are, in fact, choosing who represents them/us, either we need additional qualification for voting to stop them, or we need to combat the ignorance by mobilizing ourselves.
It’s a personal freedom to vote (or not), yes. But like any form of autonomy, it comes with moral obligations to those who share the same liberty.
Let me put it this way: You owe it to us (Americans) to get educated and vote.
(And before you pull out your Kiss-My-A** card, let me clarify that I do understand your particular dilemma this election year … and I’d love nothing more then to read a post from you in ‘08 that testifies to your informed voting.)
059 // reese // 11.07.2006 // 3:57 PM
I wonder what would happen if a “None of the above” choice was added? If “None of the above” wins, would we have another election?Jason, I would LOVE a ‘none of the above’ choice. Give me that, and I’d wake up at 6am to get to the polls!
060 // Jason // 11.07.2006 // 4:49 PM
There have been attempts in the past (apparently Russia had one, “Against all”, but it was recently removed). You can read about it on Wikipedia.
There is also an organization trying to get it on all ballots called “Voters for None of the Above” (http://www.nota.org/).
Nevada actually has “None of these candidates”, but its only used for protest votes. The candidate with the most votes still gets the office.
061 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 4:52 PM
Obviously not, or I wouldn’t be encouraging other uneducated Americans not to vote. if I already trusted them to stay away from the polls, I wouldn’t have needed to write this post.
I still think it should be put this way: “You owe it to us (Americans) to get educated and vote, or not vote at all.”
Obviously the first choice is better, but in lieu of that…
That would also make me a bit more likely to be interested, I think. At least part of the reason I am apathetic is that I have a perception that there is no good choice )and that my vote doesn’t count, being liberal-minded and in Kansas). Obviously, that’s not based on much because I’m not that informed, but my feeling that it’s unlikely I’ll agree with any of the candidates is a demotivating factor (i.e. why should I bother learning about them, I’m not going to like them anyway!).
Being able to decide not to decide officially and have that counted would definitely make me more likely to head to the polls.
062 // Julian // 11.07.2006 // 4:55 PM
This is the most stupid post you have ever written Jeff. I just can’t say how pissed I am to read such crap. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.
063 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 5:24 PM
No problem, it’s just as much your right to be offended by it as it is mine to write it.
064 // James Asher // 11.07.2006 // 5:41 PM
This doesn’t seem to have been touched on yet:
There are other things on ballots besides candidates. Maybe not all ballots, but on most general election ballots.
For instance, here in happenin’ Johnson County Kansas, there is a proposal for a ridiculous 75 million dollar soccer complex. This is a non-partisan issue, it’s a local issue. You can leave every question about candidates blank, but still have your say about special issue ballot questions.
It’s not like you’re required to answer every question.
065 // Timothious Clayton Smith // 11.07.2006 // 6:15 PM
Jeff it is interesting that you take this point of view. You have the right not to vote as given in this country. You also have the right to vote. You are not voting to give your opinion. You are voting to have someone represent your point of view, spent your money.
I see what you are saying by not knowing what the candidates are or what they stand for. It is also your choice as to be knowledgeable or ignorant on any candiate or issue. Some people like, yourself, have choose to be ignorant on everything and live their lives with blinders on thus allow their rights to be taken away from them at every election they remove themselves from.
What if a candidate (or candidates) don’t have the same views as you do? Some say to to choose the lesser of two evils. You could do that but did you know you have the right to write in your vote. Every ballot must allow you to write in who you want to represent you.
You don’t know the candidates? You don’t know the issues? Vote for who you know can represent your views and your opinions. It doesn’t matter that they are not running because you can write them in.
It you don’t know anyone who can represent you you can always vote for “None of the Above” as you write in choice. Think what would happen if you did that and very one else who “chose” to do so did. What would happen to Congress? What would happen to the Presidency? What would happen to this country?
Someone you wanted to represent YOU. WOULD have to run then. Keep doing it until you get some one who represents YOU.
066 // Dave G. // 11.07.2006 // 6:35 PM
Jeff, I totally agree with you. And I think every person has the right to vote or not vote. And even if they don’t vote, they have the right to compain about the politician they didn’t vote for.
That is what makes America so great!
067 // Kyle // 11.07.2006 // 7:22 PM
Jeff.. I think there are a lot more people in your court than these comments suggest (just look a turnout rates for most midterms).
You should also get some props for being in Lawrence and writing something like this… you’re likely to get your pass revoked (or worse).
I voted, BTW.
068 // Zack // 11.07.2006 // 8:21 PM
Totally agree with you, Jeff. And it’s nice to see someone being vocal about it. I also agree with Dave G. in that voting is a right and not an obligation. My business partner and I always get info fights about that. I didn’t vote this year, although I probably would have if I was actually registered where I am currently living (and didn’t live in NY State).
069 // Pedro Marshall // 11.07.2006 // 9:51 PM
Jeff,
Hats off to you for taken the criticism so elegantly. Though I still support my original point, I do, in some odd way, see and understand where you are coming from on the voting process.
Next time, however, please do your homework and make the vote for those of us who are, at this point, ineligible.
070 // Kevan // 11.07.2006 // 9:56 PM
But surely you had some local issues, referendums, etc. that were on the ballot? That you might have cared about?
Here in Arlington VA, we had 3 state constitution amendments, 5 county bonds, and various board elections. At minimum, I was coming out to try and shoot down one of the amendments and pass the bonds. Am I “well schooled” in local, state, or national politics? No. Did I read up on the issues before hand? I happened to. If I had neglected to, but went to the polls anyway, could I have read enough in the 5-10 minutes waiting in line at the polls, from documents available at the polling place, to have made up my mind? Absolutely.
I think you are right, education is the key - and an essential part of the voting process itself. If you are basically saying, don’t “pull the big lever”, fine - I agree with you. But if you didn’t vote today because you couldn’t find the time - I’m saddened.
On a related note - election day should be a [expletive deleted] federal holiday! Then you’d have no excuse not to get educated.
071 // Jeff Croft // 11.07.2006 // 10:01 PM
Yeah, there are. There are some things I could probably form an opinion on with a little education. But, there’s nothing that was so hugely important to me that I felt like I absolutely had to participate.
More that I couldn’t find the motivation than I couldn’t find the time. I couldn’t find the motivation to make the time — how’s that for meta? :)
Yeah, well, even if it was, I wouldn’t be excused from covering it, as I work for the media. :)
072 // Mandi // 11.08.2006 // 12:48 AM
Interesting commentary. I agree with what you’ve said about uneducated voters. However, I still see apathy as a bigger problem. If we don’t take advantage of the opportunity to make decisions about the direction of our country, the government will be delighted to step in and do it for us. To me, that is a decidedly scary proposition…
073 // Jeff Croft // 11.08.2006 // 1:34 AM
I’m sure you’re right, Mandi. And you probably figured out that it was your post that inspired this one, so thanks for that. :)
074 // Adam // 11.08.2006 // 10:13 AM
This may have already been beaten to death, but I feel I should at least offer my support in that I exactly share your view, Jeff. A close family member berated me yesterday for not voting, and I had to explain very similarly to how your post did about why I would vote, but since I struggled with the motivation to wade through the propaganda to find truth worth voting for, I felt it highly unethical to go pick random bubbles. On an SAT test of days gone by, it only affected my own future to choose randomly when uninformed. In this case, it in some small way affects the future of a large number of people. That to me takes away my right to just choose an option when I don’t know enough about them.
075 // Jem // 11.08.2006 // 10:51 AM
Did you know that in Belgium you HAVE to vote? As in, if you don’t vote, you’re put in prison for a given amount of time. I only know this because my Mum’s partner is from Belgium, and although she has been a British citizen and is registered as living over here/etc she STILL has to vote in the Belgian elections - by going back, by post or by proxy.
How ludicrous is it that a person who is not even living in the country and who has no plans to go back to said country still has to vote on things that affect that country?!
Not necessarily directly related to the post (which I completely agree with btw) but I thought I’d share all the same..
076 // Matthew Croft // 11.08.2006 // 11:30 AM
As a student of American Politics I have given this issue much thought in the last 2 years. I believe the founders of this nation shed some light on the issue in 1789 when they were drafting the constitution. Article II of the American Constitution calls for the indirect election of the American President and Senators (yes, this has been amended.) There are two main arguments for this: 1) Communication was poor so it was not possible to educate the electorate. 2) Even if the electorate had the information they were simply to incompetent to know what to do with it. I believe the second argument still applies. Yes, we all have the means of getting the information; but can you honestly tell me that every American over the age of 18 has the ability to make an educated decision? I do not think you can. HOWEVER, This does not exempt you Jeff. I know for a fact that you are intelligent individual who has this ability to think for yourself.
Voting is a privilege. If you choose not to vote, fine. That’s your choice. Freedom of choice is something we cherish in this country. I just find it hard to believe that, you -Jeff- are truly apathetic. Do you care about Haley’s education, whether there will be a music program in her high school? Do you care whether your gay and lesbian friends can marry? Do you care when Daniel will be coming home from Iraq? I have to believe that you have some opinion on at least of these issues.
I apologize for my digressions. P.S. When I run for congress I expect your vote.
077 // Jeff Croft // 11.08.2006 // 11:55 AM
Good comment, Matt. Well said.
To be clear, I wasn’t at all trying to make excuses. I don’t feel like it’s okay for me to be apathetic or to not bother getting involved and educated on the issues and candidates. It’s not okay, and I know that.
078 // Jennifer Kyrnin // 11.08.2006 // 1:22 PM
I have to say I was somewhat saddened by this post. I’m glad to see in your comments later that you “weren’t trying to make excuses” or that you feel that it’s okay to be apathetic, but I still feel that it’s important to get educated and vote.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with your premise, I would rather you didn’t vote than go out and make a choice based on the spelling of the candidate’s name or whether you saw a sign about the initiative on your drive home.
BUT - as others have said, I would much rather that you had spent the time you took (even if it was only 5 minutes) writing this post and replying to the comments to actually get educated and make an informed choice. After all, you took the time to tell us all why you weren’t voting - why not use the time to actually make a difference?
079 // Jeff Croft // 11.08.2006 // 1:41 PM
Thanks for the comments, Jennifer.
At the time I wrote this post, that simply wasn’t possible. I’m not registered to vote, and it was too late to get registered. Would it have been better for me to get informed, register, and vote? Yes. But, that wasn’t an option for me at midnight on November 7th.
080 // Clinton // 11.08.2006 // 2:40 PM
Jeff, this is your site, I enjoy it and you can do whatever the hell you like with it, but I thought it was about Design.
Politics: same shit, different pile.
Oh, and… 80th!
081 // Jeff Croft // 11.08.2006 // 2:42 PM
Clinton, this site isn’t about design. it’s about whatever’s on my mind (which, often times is design and very, very rarely is politics).
Sorry if you were disappointed to find non-design material here, but it’s a blog. I write about what I’m thinking about. That’s just the way it is.
082 // Derek K. Miller // 11.08.2006 // 3:11 PM
I’m sure when 2008 comes, you’ll have plenty of readers offering to give you Readers Digest summaries of their take on the current issues!
083 // jonathan // 11.08.2006 // 3:54 PM
I’ve been following your site for a while, as a political professional who follows web stuff (and who totally buys in to Django and what you’re doing with it).
The essence of a republic is that everyone can participate, not that everyone must. So your headline is accurate; but your reasoning is that of most of the good technical people I know (who are at least a little OCD): if they can’t do something thoroughly/well, they don’t even try. I daresay that your “below-average” compares perfectly well to others’ above-average. In other words, you should try— just like the candidates try to get through to folks like you. Those that succeed really ought to be rewarded, doncha think?
Most mass decisions are decided at the margins, by those who AREN’T true-believers— i.e., people who don’t have the time to soak in every last piece of minutae about a topic/product/candidate. Thus, you’re perfectly qualified to participate, and it’s just your own conscientiousness that is holding you back— and as a pro in this field, understanding that you’re a pro in yours, it’s misplaced conscientiousness.
A comparison: all sorts of people are allowed to get married and procreate with inadequate knowledge and expertise— why not you?
084 // James Meyer // 11.08.2006 // 4:32 PM
Apathy is a parasite, America is the host.
To me, whenever someone says to me “its your duty to vote,” what I understand by that is “its your duty to study up about the candidates and make an informed decision.” As a citizens of a free democratic country we show our respect to the system, fulfil our civic duty, and have our informed voice heard when we do this.
085 // Jeff Croft // 11.08.2006 // 4:38 PM
Yeah, well, I’m not sure I think that is the right thing to do, either. :)
But seriously — you make good, thought-provoking points. Thanks for your comments.
If that’s what they mean, great. But if that’s what they mean, should they really still be saying it at noon on election day? Isn’t it a little late for that, for most people?
And I think it’s the whole “it’s your duty” attitude that gets to me. it’s not my duty. It’s my right to vote if I want to. There’s nothing that says I have to. Therefore, I don’t think it’s far of anyone to think less of me because I decided not to.
086 // Dan Kletter // 11.08.2006 // 6:36 PM
I would love it if we had the option to vote “none of the above” but until that time, I will still vote because I believe in the value of participating. I would rather make a mistake in judgement than let someone else decide for me where the outcome has the potential to be less than desirable.
Jeff, my grandparents survived the Holicaust so this issue might carry a greater sense of urgency for me. Have you read They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer? It isn’t light reading, but it does underscore the meaning of “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Voting isn’t a right or a duty; it’s a priviledge and one I plan to keep.
087 // Scott // 11.08.2006 // 7:21 PM
You’re so right. I would guess that a large percentage—probably the majority—of the US Population Is not qualified to vote on most issues (I include myself in that group.)
Here are some hints for anyone considering voting in future elections: If you’re chosing a candidate based on something your college professior said during class, you don’t know enough to make a choice. If you don’t know who to chose in a given category, their party should not serve as a guideline; skip it and move on. If you don’t know what the candidates think about an issue that’s important, don’t vote for either or you’ll be casting an erroneous vote that will skew the results.
Voting is important, but it’s important that you know why you’re voting one way or the other. Everyone should get educated before voting, or admit that they aren’t and sit out like Jeff.
088 // Brian Ford // 11.08.2006 // 8:01 PM
And I think it’s the whole “it’s your duty” attitude that gets to me. it’s not my duty. It’s my right to vote if I want to. There’s nothing that says I have to. Therefore, I don’t think it’s far of anyone to think less of me because I decided not to.
Analogy:
I decide to hire someone who knows jack about web standards and has absolutely no inclination to learn. He realizes that there is a benefit to doing so, but is pretty apathetic about taking the time to learn.
With this in mind, he continues to be hired by big name companies (presumably) at the expense of more educated designers that produce higher quality work.)
A lot of people will argue that it’s his duty as a designer (who charges a lot of money for his services) to educate himself and provide clients with the best possible end product.
His reason:
There’s nothing that says he has to and people shouldn’t think less of him because he doesn’t.
The crux of the analogy is that whether he has to or not, people who do take the effort to do so -are- going to question his commitment and probably justifiable to think less of him in that respect.
089 // Jeff Croft // 11.08.2006 // 8:23 PM
There’s not? Like a little thing called a job description?
It’s not a very good analogy. Not being good at your job is a fireable offense. Not voting is not against any rule or law I’m aware of.
090 // Brian Ford // 11.08.2006 // 9:05 PM
It’s not a fireable offense if he employs himself. The “I decide to hire someone” meant that as a client looking for a designer — I hire someone.
9 times out of 10, the client isn’t gonna know he got jacked and this designer who doesn’t do something because he “doesn’t have to” is never going to to anything to get better.
Designers who know what they’re doing are going to think less of him.
As for voting: I think people are justified in thinking that it’s silly “not” to educate yourself because there are all sorts of things that -even if they don’t affect you- may affect your daughter, for example. You vote about education spending as well as voting for candidates.
In general, I wouldn’t stop hanging out with you because you don’t vote — but I would question your decision not to and (at least in that one regard) think little of your apathy.
091 // Jeff Croft // 11.08.2006 // 9:38 PM
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were talking about a freelance-type situation.
And so do I. I’ve said over and over that I definitely think the best thing is to be educated and vote. I’ve just also said that if you don’t get educated, you shouldn’t vote.
Well, it’s fine that you think everyone should get educated and vote and you would therefore question someone’s decision not to — but it’s still a fact that there is no obligation to vote, no law that says you have to, and perfectly good reasons for not participating. It doesn’t make someone a lesser American if they don’t vote.
That’s like saying that because I have the right to practice whatever religion I choose, I’m a pathetic excuse for an American because I choose to practice none.
092 // Brian Ford // 11.08.2006 // 9:52 PM
You’re not a pathetic excuse for an American.
You’re just going to Hell.
(See you there.)
093 // Mandi // 11.08.2006 // 11:27 PM
I’m curious about something else: how many people do you think decide to go and stand in line for an hour to vote when they are “uneducated” about the candidates or issues? It may sound problematic on paper, but I’m willing to wager that it’s a relatively small percentage. Like, really small. Perhaps they haven’t all read every initiative on the ballot in detail, but it’s likely that most people have some opinions on the things that will affect their communities, and they probably have an idea of with which party they affiliate. Probably enough ideas to form some opinions. And as much as I preach against the party platform system, it is useful in conveying one’s general beliefs about how things should run. If I’m in the pollbooth and I’m not sure about a particular candidate, I’m likely to vote party line, because I feel that on the whole, a democrat is going to work toward goals that are in line with my beliefs. Overall I think your concern, while perhaps a valid one, is probably not a major cause for concern. Apathy, on the other hand - well, I’ve already given my opinon on this…
094 // Jeff Croft // 11.09.2006 // 12:08 AM
Good point. You might be right — I have no idea.
095 // David Comdico // 11.09.2006 // 9:56 AM
This is a wonderful blog, but I find this post fairly absurd.
“…there is no obligation to vote, no law that says you have to, and perfectly good reasons for not participating. It doesn’t make someone a lesser American if they don’t vote.”
Well, actually, there is an obligation. It is a civic responsibility, and just because you will not be punished for shirking it doesn’t mean that it is any less an obligation. To think otherwise, as in the logic above, is senseless as it argues, in contrast, that only if not voting were punishable (in a free society) would it be proper to launch a rebuke of such actions. Obviously, this is absurd.
Furthermore, voting is what makes our democracy work (when it does), so by definition you are indeed being a bad American if you do not vote. What else does being an American mean if not living free and exercising one’s autonomy? If you do not have a say in your leaders you cannot make any such claim.
On the other hand, if you feel the system is broken and refuse to vote, then you are also a bad American, but only so far as you think being an American is no longer a valid position, which you have then rejected. This position is at least consistent.
You can’t have it both ways, and so many Americans feel like they can—which is why we have the problems we do, from war, debt, the environment, and on down the list.
096 // Christy // 11.09.2006 // 5:52 PM
I am an American and the right to vote is (IMO) the most important right an American can have.
Why?
Because it is what will give, keep, maintain all of your other rights.
I’m not going to lecture you about your apathy for America (and yes, abstaining from voting is equal to apathy IMO).
No, what I will do is return to your site in the last week of Oct. 2008 and let you know who exactly to vote for.
Since I have and do research the candidates, the issues and the party I would be happy to do this for the good of our country :)
In fact, gather all of your friends who don’t vote and I’d be happy to tell them all who to vote for too.
If someone hasn’t done their homework they shouldn’t take the test’¦ except I’ve passed many tests that I didn’t study for.
There are tons of people out there who vote without a single clue what they are doing, and they do this EVERY election. And what about the ones who think they know what they are doing but really don’t? And yet they vote.
Idiots vote!
Intelligent American’s who don’t take the time to vote are the real problem.
097 // Jeff Croft // 11.09.2006 // 6:15 PM
Let me get this straight. You think it would be more intelligent of me to vote for whomever you say I should than for me to do the research myself and make my own vote?
098 // Ranjani // 11.09.2006 // 9:18 PM
I’d be scared of a society that forced the vote, but the apathetic society is definitely scarier. My father doesn’t vote, and I won’t get to until 2008 - when I’m definitely pushing to get the Republican presence out of office - I try to push him too, but it doesn’t change anything. His is the old adage, “My vote doesn’t make a difference”; if everyone had that viewpoint, we’d never have a single election. Any candidate would win, regardless of how terrible.
So you could look at it two ways - the dissolution of an old democracy or the foundation of a new one. Personally, I feel people have a civic but not a moral obligation to vote, because that’s your political future you’re trying to preserve, whether it gets there or not. It’s kind of like auditioning for something - if you don’t, you’ll feel terrible (okay, not as bad when you skip voting), but if you do, you’ll have maybe a little bit of hope.
And as a kid, the enormous family debates and shouting at the television as results are posted are both extremely entertaining :)
099 // Robert // 11.10.2006 // 2:32 AM
Not necessarily him, but someone you trust.
Let’s say I was asked to vote on something web-design related. Maybe I’m on a committee deciding out of two designs for a company. There’s one that looks better to me, but doesn’t adhere to all the accessibility standards. There’s another that doesn’t look as good, but is 100% accessible.
I’m not really up on all the details of the accessibility debate, but I do know this guy called Jeff Croft who works in the field, I know his work, and I think he’s pretty clued in to these issues. I could either abstain from voting (running the risk of the wrong decision being made as well as giving the wrong impression to my boss/colleagues) or I could ask my good friend Jeff what he would do if he was me. If I’ve got time, he might explain why he’d do it. If I don’t have time, he’ll just tell me which one’s better.
Would it be wrong to accept his advice? Hell, no. And it would be better than abstaining. Taking advice from someone you know and trust is an absolutely valid way to inform yourself on an issue – even if they’ve just asked their friend, and that friend asked another friend. You trust their judgment, and you’re better off voting in favour of their position than weakening it by abstaining.
Disclosure: Where I come from, voting is compulsory. As it should be.
100 // JustinK // 11.10.2006 // 9:53 AM
I also chose not to vote this election but for different reason than apathy towards the issues. I am one of those people that is watching political talkshows and listening to NPR radio all day. I try to include as many different views as possible and that even means watching Fox News from time to time. I feel this has given me the ability to come to my OWN ideas and conclusions on the issues. While I may not know everything about a certain issue, I probably know more than the average person. The problem is, there is no one that holds my political views closely enough that I would be willing to vote for. I think a lot of people vote for the sake of voting and I dont think thats the best way to go about it. I tried to explain this to my co-workers but they kind of just looked at me with an awkward eye and still wondered why I wasnt voting. All in all I do believe voting is a great aspect of this country but Im going to make my vote count. And until theres a candidate I WANT to vote for, I simply wont vote at all.
P.S. that live comment preview feature is amazing.
101 // Christy // 11.10.2006 // 10:23 AM
Jeff, If you are going to vote, have done the research and are committed to voting by the last week in October 2008 then my offer to assist you would be a moot point. In fact, I would be impressed by your sincere efforts to become knowledgeable about the candidates, the issues, et al. However, if by then you have not done any of the above and are going to abstain from voting again then yep, I’d be glad to help you. Which I believe is much better than going on and on about what you should or shouldn’t do, or about your duty. My offer was intended to be taken as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor, however, I had hoped you were serious. I got that impression from your response to the comments by Mathew Croft.
Justin, I do understand that sometimes we can only agree with a portion of a specific candidates views. And that is what makes this America. Just like anything it is a bit of “faith” to vote for someone. But isn’t it more like leaving it to “fate” to not vote?
102 // Jeff Croft // 11.10.2006 // 11:40 AM
Christy, I’ve said all along — even in the original post— that I wasn’t content to be apathetic and that I wanted to get informed and educated and participate. I simply didn’t get it done before this election, and I felt like it was best for me to abstain because of that (perhaps letting someone else choose my votes, like you’ve suggested, would have been another option - but it feels somehow wrong for me for someone else to basically get two votes).
I’m almost certain I’ll vote in 2008.
103 // Christy // 11.10.2006 // 12:45 PM
Jeff, Yea, I figured you were gonna vote in 2008, otherwise I’d be on the spot having to publicly disclose my vote ;)
Keep up the good work as I’m always visiting to see what you have to say about web design.
104 // Matthew Croft // 11.10.2006 // 1:33 PM
Voting in American is a right. Therefore it is a choice. We all have the right to freedom of speech, does everyone exercise that right? No. We have the right assemble. Does everyone do that? No. We also have the right to Jury of our peers. Does everyone choose to use that right? No. Why is voting different?
Some people (a couple comments ago) argue that it is your “civic duty” to vote. What in the world does that mean? Why is voting a duty? People seem to think that voting is what holds this republic together. I disagree. We vote-supposedly-so we are represented in our government. Did Present Bush represent the popular feelings of America in 2000? No. (as a side not, I am a strong believer in the Electoral College). Do you realize that Hitler was popularly elected? Voting does not guarantee any prolonged democracy. Voting does not hold this republic together. IMO there are two main elements that hold this country together: 1) The two Party System and 2) The separation of powers and Checks and balances principles. I would be happy to backup my position however; I have already gotten off topic.
In conclusion, Voting is a right. American’s are all about their Rights. I believe that is your choice if you want to exercise that right.
105 // Jennifer // 11.10.2006 // 5:17 PM
Jeff- I believe you had a post a few years ago about evolution in the school system (or the lack there of) and in that post you charged that you would education yourself and participate in local and national politics. It’s really unfortunate that it didn’t happen- but there is plenty of time to become educate about the issues for the next election. I think you owe it to yourself and your daughter to help shape our nation’s/state’s future.
106 // Jeff Croft // 11.10.2006 // 5:35 PM
Jennifer-
I looked back at that post, and what I actually said was that there’d never been a candidate or issue I felt strongly enough about to make me vote — and that if there ever was, I would. I implied that the evolution education in Kansas issue was one of those issues that I do feel strongly enough about to vote on. I didn’t say I definitely would educate myself and participate in politics.
The situation is still mostly the same — there was no candidate or issue on the midterm local ballot here in Lawrence I felt strongly enough about that it compelled me to read up and vote on it (in particular, there wasn’t anything about evolution education or school boards on this ballot). I still maintain that if/when there is, I’ll vote. Until then, I likely won’t. I don’t believe I should vote for the sake of voting. I believe I should vote when I have an opinion I want to be heard.
Luckily for America (who seems to really want my vote!), there are at least two — and maybe three — potential 2008 presidential candidates that I feel strongly about, so there’s a very good change I’ll want to vote on that matter.
(For what it’s worth, I also said in that post that part of my disinterest stems from the fact that I live in a perpetually red state and I’m doubtful my vote will matter. But, Tuesday’s election (in which Kansas voted primarily democratic), suggests that may be changing. So, that’s good.)
107 // Christy // 11.10.2006 // 8:07 PM
Found a great videoblog in which this guy zefrank gives a quick primer on voting… Thought it might lighten the mood a bit. http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/10/101606.html
108 // James Asher // 11.10.2006 // 11:04 PM
Jeff, you’re lucky you live where you do within Lawrence. Apparently part of the Western border between District 2 and District 3 lies right around Iowa Street in Lawrence. Since you live just to the West, you’re in District 2, otherwise you would have been in District 3 - the same as KC - and then you would have had a vote for candidates vying for the State Board of Education. Which, has had this issue with evolution lately…
I wonder if you knew you were in District 2 vs. District 3…
109 // Brian Ford // 11.11.2006 // 10 AM
Luckily for America (who seems to really want my vote!), there are at least two — and maybe three — potential 2008 presidential candidates that I feel strongly about, so there’s a very good change I’ll want to vote on that matter.
Who?
110 // Jeff Croft // 11.11.2006 // 11:43 AM
Ask me in person and I’ll tell you. I don’t think I want to get into that discussion here.
111 // Peter Hentges // 11.13.2006 // 9:04 AM
The one thing that I haven’t seen in scanning your responses to the many comments here, Jeff: Recognizing that your apathy removed your choice to excercise your right this past election, have you made the effort to register yet?
I agree that an uninformed vote is likely worse than no vote. While I hope that you take the effort to get informed before your next election (which may be before 2008 for local races, you should check), I urge you to register now while the thought is still fresh in your mind.
Happy (future) voting!
112 // Jeff Croft // 11.13.2006 // 9:26 AM
Not yet, no, but I do intend to.
Good thought.