punch_the_lion wrote:Because society has this ingrained notion of an exclusive, two-party voting system of either "Republican" or "Democrat". It is a limited set of parameters that really narrow the alternatives. People become disillusioned by the voting process like myself as a result.

Granted that the choice is not ideal, do you think there is no difference in the world depending on which party is in power? No difference? Or if you concede that there is a difference, do you have no preference?

There may be only six inches difference between the two choices, but that is the six inches we live in.

steve wrote:
What is the negative consequence of voting, if that vote has a chance at being counted toward a greater good? I'm not making a defense of voting, I'm asking you to explain why it is bad to vote. Is it the driving thing?

the driving thing is a very simple but accurate cost/benefit analysis of it. what you are costing the world by driving to the booths (in terms of mechanical risk and pollution) far outweighs how you can benefit the world with your vote.

BClark wrote:the driving thing is a very simple but accurate cost/benefit analysis of it. what you are costing the world by driving to the booths (in terms of mechanical risk and pollution) far outweighs how you can benefit the world with your vote.

But if I'm going out anyway, to the cross-burning or whatever, it's okay to stop and vote along the way, right? As long as it requires no extra effort, it's not a bad thing to do, right? Can we at least agree that voting in an attempt to keep an evil bastard out of power is not a bad thing to do, as long as it requires no extra driving?

man... you gotta be lazy to not vvote on account of the driving involved.

Yes, please don't vote. Your car pollutes the air when you drive, and makes the ice melt. Not voting is a good idea. Thanks for not voting.

BClark wrote:the driving thing is a very simple but accurate cost/benefit analysis of it. what you are costing the world by driving to the booths (in terms of mechanical risk and pollution) far outweighs how you can benefit the world with your vote.

You might want to forward this post to Bill O'Reilly- he's fond of arguments like these. I can almost hear him making it in that Talking Points voice he uses- second thought, not really. I think I do hear Darrell Hammond doing it as part of his impression of O'Reilly on SNL...

Hypothetically speaking, were there to be a candidate with a platform of funding and mandating a renewable energy program, including regulation of the auto and factory industry standards, would the cost/benefit on driving to vote for this beautiful candidate need to be refactored?

I vote, but I also give money and research time to the blackboxvoting.org cause. Beyond that, I believe our system has been co-opted, in varying levels, from the very beginning... but that may just come from me being a nattering nabob of negativism, and a reader of writers like Howard Zinn.

I still vote. And I carefully drive my high-mileage, slightly less pollution-belching car to do it. One of these here days there will be someone worth that risk, and by the most minute degrees, my having voted all those other less effective times may have made this possible. Maybe.

apl4eris wrote:Hypothetically speaking, were there to be a candidate with a platform of funding and mandating a renewable energy program, including regulation of the auto and factory industry standards, would the cost/benefit on driving to vote for this beautiful candidate need to be refactored?

absolutely not.

steve wrote:But if I'm going out anyway, to the cross-burning or whatever, it's okay to stop and vote along the way, right? As long as it requires no extra effort, it's not a bad thing to do, right? Can we at least agree that voting in an attempt to keep an evil bastard out of power is not a bad thing to do, as long as it requires no extra driving?

its not a bad thing to do but its still a trivial thing to do. no extra effort, fine. i dont mind doing trivial things for no extra effort. why the heck not. but since i was not in such a situation (no extra effort) during the last election, i didnt vote. fair enough?

i should note that youre the one who brought up "effort"... i see it not as a matter of effort but as a matter of the harm that can be done to others. extra driving means lots of potential harm, at least in my view. so, to correct myself, no extra risk/harm/etc, fine, in such a situation i dont consider it wrong to vote. though i still consider the benefit to be trivial.

clocker bob wrote:
You might want to forward this post to Bill O'Reilly- he's fond of arguments like these. I can almost hear him making it in that Talking Points voice he uses- second thought, not really. I think I do hear Darrell Hammond doing it as part of his impression of O'Reilly on SNL...

hmmmm... ever think of actually addressing what i said? as opposed to saying something along the lines of "that sounds like o'reilly talk" and not even explaining why. i could say the same thing about what you just said and without explaining myself, my statement would hold equal weight.

people who dont agree with me on the car thing are evidently not quite aware of the volatility involved in driving (or they are aware but have simply trained themselves well in rationalizations). its very much an accepted thing to do often in the US, but the fact is that driving such a heavy thing at such a fast rate is extremely risky (to yourself and others). driving should be avoided whenever possible. "but everyone does it, so i guess its ok..." group-think of the highest order.

given the nature of driving, i stand by my opinion that driving to a voting booth induces a lot of volatility in the world, which far outweighs the balance that your little vote could possibly induce.

clocker bob wrote: You might want to forward this post to Bill O'Reilly- he's fond of arguments like these. I can almost hear him making it in that Talking Points voice he uses- second thought, not really. I think I do hear Darrell Hammond doing it as part of his impression of O'Reilly on SNL...

BClark wrote:hmmmm... ever think of actually addressing what i said? as opposed to saying something along the lines of "that sounds like o'reilly talk" and not even explaining why.

I did ask a serious question exploring the rationale for your position, but got no answer. I thought the above post was funny, and needed no explanation if you've seen O'Reilly.

BClark wrote:people who dont agree with me on the car thing are evidently not quite aware of the volatility involved in driving.

No, we just accept the risk. I walk to vote anyway- the polls are in the park across from my building.

'Volatility' is a very odd choice of language, if I do say- do you mean volatility as 'the potential for rapid change', like a car crash? Are you a luddite or Amish? It's cool if you are, then we'll know if you are anti-machine or just think driving should be widely restricted.

BClark wrote:its very much an accepted thing to do often in the US, but the fact is that driving such a heavy thing at such a fast rate is extremely risky (to yourself and others). driving should be avoided whenever possible. "but everyone does it, so i guess its ok..." group-think of the highest order.

We can't all move into plastic bubbles, can we? Breathing or drinking the water should be avoided in much of the world, too. I think we're stuck with automobiles for another 100 years, at least, although peak oil is going to work for your cause. Would you support cars with governed engines that would only go 5 mph maximum? We'd still have accidents. What is your attitude on bicycles? On crossing the street on foot?

If this was a troll, it was a good one.