This was sent to me, so I'm not 100% sure who the author is. A Google search brought up something called "Dean's World".

Anyway, I thought it was well written.


Election Day is Coming!


This Tuesday is election day. I sincerely hope that, on that day, no one feels obligated to vote.

You read that right. I said hope that no one feels obligated to vote. Voting is not an obligation, and it is not a duty. There is no such duty, no such obligation. It's nowhere in the Constitution, or any law. From the day this country was founded, countless people have chosen not to vote.

We are a free country. Freedom includes the freedom not to participate, and there's not a bit of shame in that.

Indeed, if you don't take the time to inform yourself on the issues, and make a rational choice based on that, I'd like to suggest that it's your duty as a citizen to stay out of the voting booth. I really mean that. If you do not follow the news, the issues debated, and the people involved, please do not vote on Tuesday.

Here's a list of other reasons I hope you might consider not voting on Tuesday:

If you think one of the candidates is cute, and the other is ugly or dorky, and you plan on letting that sway your vote: Please stay home on election day

If you plan on voting because you figure the Democrats are "nicer," or the Republicans "more patriotic," please stay home on election day.

If you plan on voting against Democrats because you think they're evil Communists who want to destroy every last vestige of freedom in America, please stay home on election day.

If you plan on voting against Republicans because you feel they're racists who want to throw orphans and old people out in the snow while they grind up endangered species for hot dogs, please stay home on election day.

If you still aren't sure whether you should vote or not, here's a handy little quiz you can give yourself.

1) Who is your current congressman or congresswoman? What party is he or she affiliated with? 2) How many United States Senators does your state have? Name all of them.

3) Name any bill that was debated in Congress in the last two years. Whether you agreed with it or not doesn't matter. Whether it became a law or not does not matter. Just name any bill that was debated in Congress in the last two years.

4) Name any third-party candidate running for office--any office--in your state.

5) What is Roe v. Wade? What influence can your governor or congressman have on it?

6) When President Kennedy cut taxes in the 1960s, did tax revenues go up, go down, or remain the same? What happened when President Reagan did the same thing?

7) What is "the Kyoto protocol?"

8) Has the military draft been reinstated?

9) What is a "filibuster?"

10) Who is the Vice President of the United States today?



THERE IS NO SHAME IN NOT BEING ABLE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. But if you can't answer at least six of them without much trouble, why are you considering voting? It's an awesome responsibility. Shouldn't you know more before making such an important choice?

One of the marks of a free society is that people don't feel the need to closely keep track of the dull business of politics. If you can go about your life and not have the government constantly intruding on your happiness, that is, truly, a sign that America is a great country.

It's not important that people show up. It's important that the people who do show up take the time to learn about the issues, listen to all sides (not just the ones that sound nice), and really think about what would be the best choice for the most people.

If you're not up to that, great. That's what makes this a free country: your right to go about your life without having to care about the same things everyone else does. So let's get this straight:

IT'S YOUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN NOT TO VOTE!

And there is not a damned thing wrong with exerciseing that right. LET FREEDOM RING!

Oh, and by the way, if over the next couple of years you start to get upset at the way things are running, and decide you want to get informed and involved, that's great too. Those of us who already care will be happy to see you join us. Really. But please don't do it because you feel obligated, or embarassed, or any of that nonsense. Do it because you really care enough to educate yourself and make choices you can say you firmly believe in. :-)

If you plan on voting against Republicans because you feel they're racists who want to throw orphans and old people out in the snow while they grind up endangered species for hot dogs, please stay home on election day.


I would support Panda Flavored hotdogs.

While I kinda agree with the sentiment, doesn't that whole thing smell like someone wishing for the good 'ol days of only white, male land owners being able to vote?

While I kinda agree with the sentiment, doesn't that whole thing smell like someone wishing for the good 'ol days of only white, male land owners being able to vote?
Wow, What a racist thing to say!

I'm as white/conservative as they come and I was offended by that.

Beelziod

good 'ol days = sarcasm.

good 'ol days = sarcasm.You misunderstand me.

The fact that the post asks that only educated people vote, you then make the jump that only "white, male land owners" are the only educated people. That is very racist toward EVERYONE who is not white, male and a land owner.

I am far from a policitcly correct person and have my own fun poking fun of people of different race, religion, sexual prefence, hair color, ect. However, I never even came close to conclusion that you came to, and it shocked me when it came from you!

Beelziod

What I'm saying is this. How many steps away from what I said is trying to encourage some minimum education to vote? I'm not saying that education = white people. I'm saying that trying to encourage people not to vote based on any criteria is a step backwards toward the scenario I mentioned.

What I'm saying is this. How many steps away from what I said is trying to encourage some minimum education to vote? I'm not saying that education = white people. I'm saying that trying to encourage people not to vote based on any criteria is a step backwards toward the scenario I mentioned.

So, you would want someone to pick your president who's choose is based on looks or the bias of political advertisements?


Maybe I am out there, but I never read any suggestion of a "minimum education to vote", as you said. It suggests to those that choose to not be informed about the political process to exercise their right NOT to vote.

Do you think that questioning any voter is supression of a vote?

I can answer those questions and I can't legally vote :p

(only 17, grrr)

Like I said, I kinda agree with the sentiment.

I find the overall message to be a little scary though. I don't think disenfranchising any group for any reason is a good idea. If someone wants to pick the next president based on the color coordination of his socks and tie, that's their right as an American citizen. As dumb as it may be, trying to take that away from them would be a step away from everything we've progressed to become, wouldn't it?

The article suggests that the voter not vote. It is not suggesting taking anything away, it's suggesting to that voter another course of action, not to vote. Maybe something the voter did not think of or is too embarrassed to not vote because he/she is not informed.

I actually think that this is a step forward not backward as you suggest. Taking this to an extreme conclusion every vote is cast by an informed voter, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Beelziod

I think it would be great if everyone that voted was informed (of course, with the polarized nature of information these days, who could agree on who's actually informed and who's deluded?).

I just see it as a bad thing that anyone would encourage people not to vote. Just because they don't know what the Kyoto protocol was about doesn't mean they have less right to vote than anyone else. Encouraging people to get themselves more informed or more educated would be great, but telling them they should be a second class citizen until they are educated seems like a slippery slope to me.

I can see how you'd make that jump, but that is not what I got out of the article. I saw it as more of a wake up call for the people who just pull a lever without knowing the issues.

Sure, they have every right to do that (or vote based on sock color, as you said)- but (to me) part of voting is being responsible about it.

Parts of that list are on the test to become a US citizen, if I recall the studies of a friend I had back in college- meaning that those not lucky enough to be born citizens of the US *have* to know that information before they can even vote.

I tried to think of a good comparison for responsible voting, and the best one I could come up with was this:

You can drive a car if you are over the age of 16 in many areas- but if you lack the ability to do so due to age or disease, it is irresponsible to do so.

Likewise, you have the right to vote if you are over the age of 18 and are not a felon- but it is irresponsible to do so without educating yourself.