OT - Gas to hit 4.00 - Vote for Ron Paul - dropping out?

[Matthew Walker]

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