- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,743
- Reaction score
- 12,285
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
So do you vote even if you're not informed?
I've never gone in to voting booth without some decent idea about the people I would be voting for.So do you vote even if you're not informed?
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.
I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:
Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….
It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.
(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )
So do you vote even if you're not informed?
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.
I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:
Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….
It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.
(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )
So do you vote even if you're not informed?
I do the best that I can and I vote in every election.
If nobody voted except those who have the time to be very well informed on every issue and candidate, who would be running the USA?
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.
I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:
Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….
It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.
(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )
So do you vote even if you're not informed?
People who don't learn always have stumped me.
Is it really that hard to research before going to vote?
Most states /counties these days have websites that cover who is running and so forth. People know way ahead of time who will be on the ballot. There's no excuse, in my opinion, for being uniformed and still deciding to go to the voting booth. Might as well not vote - not like someone who doesn't do research actually gives a **** about who runs and what they're doing in office.["Oh . . . gee. . . is Obama President? I wish I could remember if I voted for him or not."]
People who don't learn always have stumped me.
Is it really that hard to research before going to vote?
Most states /counties these days have websites that cover who is running and so forth. People know way ahead of time who will be on the ballot. There's no excuse, in my opinion, for being uniformed and still deciding to go to the voting booth. Might as well not vote - not like someone who doesn't do research actually gives a **** about who runs and what they're doing in office. "Oh . . . gee. . . is Obama President? I wish I could remember if I voted for him or not." []
Dare I suggest that's part of the problem? It might explain why so much seems to go down blind party lines.Really researching candidates in 20 different local races is probably a work week's worth of time.
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.
I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:
Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….
It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.
(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )
So do you vote even if you're not informed?
Most websites simply do spin jobs. To really understand a candidate you'd need to look indepth at their voting record or positions. Information you're not likely to get at the candidate's or partisan websites. Really researching candidates in 20 different local races is probably a work week's worth of time. Not saying that it isn't worth doing - it is - but a lot of people may not have the time.
Dare I suggest that's part of the problem? It might explain why so much seems to go down blind party lines.
I am curious what all those different races would be. Where I am I can only think of half a dozen directly elected representatives in total!
At the very least, if you're unhappy with how things are, vote out the incumbent.
If you're happy, still vote out the incumbent.
Another GOP thread continuing their voter suppression techniques.
The 2016 election has obviously started.
McConnell is now speaking--he is a masterful politician and probably one of the better GOPs right now--as hard as that is for me to say .
I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.
I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:
Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….
It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.
(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )
So do you vote even if you're not informed?
I vote on everything...but I am never not informed on what I'm voting on. That is not to say that I have expert knowledge about everything I vote on...but I have enough knowledge to make a voting decision that I am satisfied with.
But, your thread title refers to an issue that is not reflected by your poll. That is the issue of...what do I think OTHER people should do. I don't care. I do what I think I should do...others are free to do what they think they should do. I think that's a good attitude. If more people stopped trying to tell other people what they should do and just worried about what they, personally, are doing we would be a whole lot better off as a society.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?