On Nov 3, 2004, at 10:28 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
I mean that of the people who didn't vote this time, I would bet a vast
preponderance chose not to because they didn't like the choices and
figured voting for one bad apple wasn't any different from voting for
another. It probably seemed the least wasteful of time not to vote at
all, and I'm not sure I'd be able to propose any really convincing
arguments otherwise.
I heard of one woman defending not-voting with, "What if I make the
wrong choice?" There are circumstances under which this is a
reasonable, but possibly lame, argument, but I didn't think that was one
of them. :(
Yow, yeah, no joke. I think my response to that would be "it's an election, not a lifetime commitment -- if you make the wrong choice, whatever that means, you have multiple options to undo it, not the least of which is voting differently next time..."
When was the last time a president was really a man of the people, as
opposed to someone ludicrously rich, born to privilege, and utterly out
of touch with workaday realities? Geo HW Bush, recall, was astonished
to discover that laser scanners were used in grocery store checkouts,
which indicates how long it had been since he'd personally shopped for
groceries.
It's not just the "rich", it's the "got a job that keeps me from doing that stuff".
I think that's what I was thinking of, but I hadn't quite got a handle on that idea. That's a much better way of expressing it.
At least we didn't have any claims that elderly voters were "confused" by clearly-labeled ballots. ;)
No, we just had issues with certain voting machines when the voter was voting straight ticket.
Ouch.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
