Why should I vote?

[lastchance]

Corruption vs. Stupidity. If you let others make your decision for you, they can get together and agree to screw you over. Of course, you can screw yourself over if you're stupid.

You should vote even if you are uninformed if you believe that corruption in the system is a bigger threat then stupidity in the system.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." You want to have a say so corrupt people can't go around and tell what to do.

[gonores]

As long as you don't bitch about what government is or is not doing over the next few years, the proper move is to not vote.

And when you do feel like making your voice heard, do it with your wallet.

[wacki]

Although I don't like the idea of despots, I agree with everything else Michael Davis said.

I didn't vote last round because I didn't know enough. I educated myself this time around, now I feel I have the right to vote. Those that are too lazy to inform themselves shouldn't be making decisions.

lastchance raises a good point. The only problem I have with it is that one candidate always tries to falsely accuse the other of being corrupt. And more often then not, the corrupt person is the one using these emotionally charged words to describe and attack his opponent. Stupid, inexperienced, ill informed, or people who lack "street smarts" normally don't see that. Having any one of the above can put you in a difficult position. It takes alot of work to see through all the bull.

It's a catch 22 really.

Whatever you choose, good luck!

[elwoodblues]

If you feel you are ignorant on the issues (which it sounds like you do) you should either educate yourself and vote or go play some poker on election day.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Read the platforms of all the candidates. Not just Bush & Kerry, but all the candidates.

See which group of ideas most closely reflects what you believe and vote for that one. If nothing jumps out at you, don't vote.

Despite what some people would have you believe, the freedom to vote is also the freedom to not vote. It's better to not vote than to vote for a candidate because some actor, comedian or musician supports them.

[spamuell]

JTG51 if you want the best no bullshit news subscribe to the Economist. It's expensive, but it's the best news.

The Economist is clearly not unbiased. It's pro-business and pretty right wing. I'm talking about the UK Edition but am under the impression that the US one is pretty similar.

There's no such thing no bullshit, objective news though. So just subscribe to something which has views that you happen to agree with. Sure, in your case it's the Economist, but don't go around telling others that it's "the best news" as if it's a fact, when it clashes with the views of many people.

[mistrpug]

If you don't care and don't pay attention, you should not vote. Doing something just because you can is stupid, even in the case of voting.

[MMMMMM]

Most elections I have not voted because neither major candidate or party sufficiently impressed me. In fact, the last election I voted in was in 1984, for Reagan (because I thought it essential to achieve substantial military superiority over the USSR, and because cutting taxes would be great for the economy).

More recently I have discovered that the Libertarian Party most closely mirrors many of my convictions about our constitutionally protected rights and liberties (although I think they do err on a couple of other matters).

Therefore I will be voting Libertarian ( www.lp.org ) in a bid to add some show of support for what I see as the only truly liberal party in the country today, that is, the only party which appears to truly respect individual rights and liberties, and which eschews federal governmental interference as a means to "improve" society.

If no candidate or party flicks your bic, don't vote; that's my take on it.

[JTG51]

Despite what some people would have you believe, the freedom to vote is also the freedom to not vote.

I'm glad to hear a lot of you say this. I was afraid everyone would give the, "It's your responsibility to vote!" line.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
JTG51 if you want the best no bullshit news subscribe to the Economist. It's expensive, but it's the best news.

The Economist is clearly not unbiased. It's pro-business and pretty right wing. I'm talking about the UK Edition but am under the impression that the US one is pretty similar.

There's no such thing no bullshit, objective news though. So just subscribe to something which has views that you happen to agree with. Sure, in your case it's the Economist, but don't go around telling others that it's "the best news" as if it's a fact, when it clashes with the views of many people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I never said the Economist wasn't unbiased. All news sources are biased to some degree. The economist has a wealth of information in it. There are very little pictures and there is alot of news in the economist that is not reported in mainstream news. Alot of the material is dry, but factual and that's why I called it the best no bull news source. I still stand by my statement.

I wouldn't limit news to just what you agree with. I don't agree with alot of people here, but I still read their posts. And quite frequently they are able to convince me to change my mind. Limiting your news to only stuff you agree with is a very very bad way to go. I couldn't think of a better way to become blind to reality.