On Wed, June 18, 2008 2:51 pm, Levi Pearson wrote: > I don't think anyone said that you aren't allowed to vote for someone > you know doesn't have a chance of winning. If you really don't have a > preference between the viable candidates, it doesn't matter if you > don't vote for one of them. Regardless of who *you* vote for, one of > the viable candidates will win, but your vote won't have directly > helped to determine which one. > > There is nothing inherently patriotic in voting for someone who has no > chance of winning, especially if you write them in. It's an empty > act, meant only to soothe your own conscience. No one knows (or can > verify, if you tell) who you voted for. If your candidate really had > enough supporters for the strategic voters to make a difference in > pulling off a successful election, the candidate would be a viable one > and the strategic voters wouldn't have to pick someone else.
I never said there was anything special about voting for the underdog. I meant that there's something special about voting. Period. As citizens of the United States, we have duty/right of participating in the election of our leaders. Just because many people don't choose to do this, doesn't change that fact. Not to long ago, I read Starship Troopers for the first time, and it got me thinking. I don't know if we need to go as far as they did (Only those who have served in the military being able to vote), but I have moments when I think that a good chunk of the modern population should be banned from voting, because of how little they know about the issues that they are voting on. -- Matthew Walker Kydance Hosting & Consulting LAMP & MU* Specialist /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
