Please don't vote

[stafffighter]

In America we face twin crises in regard to the electoral process. First of all at this insanely early stage there are already a myriad of candidates that it's next to impossible to decipher and second that voting rates drop with each election. I offer here a simple solution to both of these problems.
There are certain people who, while in all legal terms allowed to vote should not. While this might affect the over all number of voters adversely the quality of the decisions being conveyed will skyrocket. I offer to you, the people of Newgrounds, examples of people who simply should not vote. I have deliberately left partisan reasons off of this list.

1. Anyone who references wiki for information on a serous topic. Wiki is far too open and malleable a resource to be treated as a concrete form of information. For example, someone as ignorant as you could have posted.

2. Anyone who's political acumen comes entirely from the social commentary on grownup cartoons. Be it south park, family guy or any of the adult swim team if you are incapable of absorbing information without being entertained at the same time you're essentially a small child watching sesame street and small children don't vote. If you just tried to save yourself with The Daily Show and/or Colbert you still lose.

3. Anyone who invokes the freedom of speech to end an argument. Far too often when something is said and another person expresses outrage someone will harp in that the speaker had every right to say what they did. Anyone who's given any real consideration to said freedom would realize that it was not meant for statements to exist in a vacuum but that it indeed embraces the right of others to comment on the original statement and so on and so forth. Rights carry with them a trust to use them responsibly. If you can't do this you have no place choosing leaders.

4. If you think that not voting is a revolutionary act that will in itself make a statement about who you are and what you feel, go with that.

5. Dorm room Commies: You're just starting to taste freedom but it's within a safety net. As such you are not accounting for all these ideas you're hearing being applied to real people in real circumstances. Your parting from the social norm is reactionary in nature and thus leaves you in a poor place to choose anything. This group is closely related to but not synonymous with...........

6. Marijuana activists: If your primary concern is something this short sighted and self serving I don't trust your vote

Did I miss any?

[therealsylvos]

Mentally ill people. no joke.

[Nylo]

At 10/16/07 03:58 PM, stafffighter wrote: In America we face twin crises in regard to the electoral process. First of all at this insanely early stage there are already a myriad of candidates that it's next to impossible to decipher and second that voting rates drop with each election. I offer here a simple solution to both of these problems.

Sounds like an elitist solution to rig elections. Any dolt has the right to vote as long as they pay taxes and are legal citizens. It's this crazy new thing called Democracy.

[Elfer]

At 10/16/07 04:12 PM, Nylo wrote: Sounds like an elitist solution to rig elections. Any dolt has the right to vote as long as they pay taxes and are legal citizens. It's this crazy new thing called Democracy.

Essentially, that's the biggest flaw of democracy. Your argument assumes that democracy is perfect in order to make your point.

[stafffighter]

At 10/16/07 04:12 PM, Nylo wrote:

Sounds like an elitist solution to rig elections. Any dolt has the right to vote as long as they pay taxes and are legal citizens. It's this crazy new thing called Democracy.

It's rigging elections to have people actually informed on what they're voting about vote? Fuck you called the other people dolts yourself. The same people who I said in that opening statment had the right to vote so don't try waving that in my face. I know you're proud to be an American. Where at least you know you're free. And you won't forget the men who died to give that right to you. But the point remains we owe it to the people who made that sacrifce to do Democracy right.

[slackerzac]

Why dont we just enbrace communism then? Thats always worked in the past.

[stafffighter]

At 10/16/07 04:18 PM, KemCab wrote:

Why do we even have a democracy? It's ineffective and only serves as a substitute for an effective leader. Frankly, in my opinion, democracy works simply by bogging down the decision process so that no one can take advantage of it.

ooooooooooooooooookaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy yyyyyyyyyyy. You have a better idea?

At 10/16/07 04:22 PM, slackerzac wrote: Why dont we just enbrace communism then? Thats always worked in the past.

That you for illistrating point number 5.

[Gunter45]

At 10/16/07 04:12 PM, Nylo wrote: Sounds like an elitist solution to rig elections. Any dolt has the right to vote as long as they pay taxes and are legal citizens. It's this crazy new thing called Democracy.

Sure, they have the right to vote. However, you can agree that not everyone should vote. That's the operative would. It's like the right to have children and/or own a gun. Let's face it, some people shouldn't do that, either.

[slackerzac]

At 10/16/07 04:34 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

Sure, they have the right to vote. However, you can agree that not everyone should vote. That's the operative would. It's like the right to have children and/or own a gun. Let's face it, some people shouldn't do that, either.

Yes but if we deny them that right that will slowly lead are country into a dictatorship.

[stafffighter]

At 10/16/07 04:57 PM, slackerzac wrote:

At 10/16/07 04:34 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

Sure, they have the right to vote. However, you can agree that not everyone should vote. That's the operative would. It's like the right to have children and/or own a gun. Let's face it, some people shouldn't do that, either.

Yes but if we deny them that right that will slowly lead are country into a dictatorship.

If you allow yourself and your point of view to be lead without properly informing yourself and considering the choices infront of you then you're already serving the function of a dictatorship.

[slackerzac]

At 10/16/07 04:59 PM, stafffighter wrote:

If you allow yourself and your point of view to be lead without properly informing yourself and considering the choices infront of you then you're already serving the function of a dictatorship.

By allowing people to have freedom and rights?

[Gunter45]

Nobody's suggesting we make it illegal for anyone to vote, calm down, fag. We're just saying that some people simply should stay home on election day and chill out with cartoons.

[stafffighter]

At 10/16/07 05:02 PM, slackerzac wrote:

At 10/16/07 04:59 PM, stafffighter wrote:

If you allow yourself and your point of view to be lead without properly informing yourself and considering the choices infront of you then you're already serving the function of a dictatorship.

By allowing people to have freedom and rights?

Could you at least pretend to have read the qualifiers in that post? Or was my sentence too long to hold your attention?

[slackerzac]

At 10/16/07 05:04 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Nobody's suggesting we make it illegal for anyone to vote, calm down, fag. We're just saying that some people simply should stay home on election day and chill out with cartoons.

I didnt say you were suggesting to make it illegal for anyone to vote. But thats what makes this country great is that anyone can make there political voice heard. Weather it be someone who went to Harvard or a crack addict, they have the right to vote and to either deny them that or tell them to stay and home and watch cartoons wouldn't be what our country stands for.

[stafffighter]

At 10/16/07 05:12 PM, slackerzac wrote:

I didnt say you were suggesting to make it illegal for anyone to vote. But thats what makes this country great is that anyone can make there political voice heard. Weather it be someone who went to Harvard or a crack addict, they have the right to vote and to either deny them that or tell them to stay and home and watch cartoons wouldn't be what our country stands for.

My point is that unless someone knows about what they're voting about their voice is meaningless. They reflect no trueuseful or evern developed view and as such they might as well not exist. In this they could just just as easily be a doped up subject of a dictator.
My suggestions had no bearing in anyones social stature. The only way they were eletist is in that that favored people who could read them.

[Gunter45]

Our country was founded on civic responsibility. Simply going out and voting without doing research or forming an opinion about the candidates based on the issues isn't what our country represents. Voting is a big responsibility and, as such, people should take it more seriously. All we're saying is that, if you're going to vote, take the time to make sure you know who you're voting for or don't vote at all. That's exactly what our country's about.

[SmilezRoyale]

Apathetic people shouldn't vote;

But of course, you cannot [let me rephrase, you can tell, but not force] tell a person not to vote for reasons indicating they're ignorance. While it is true that the value of suffrage has decreased as individuals have taken it for granted; doing such would set a dangerous precedent to bring the prospect of voting back to the time where Democracy meant rich white men electing other rich white men, and please, i REALLY don't want to hear more complaints from the African American community about my parent conspiring to turn them into slaves.

[poxpower]

At 10/16/07 03:58 PM, stafffighter wrote:

1. Anyone who references wiki for information on a serous topic. Wiki is far too open and malleable a resource to be treated as a concrete form of information. For example, someone as ignorant as you could have posted.

I know everyone likes to rag on wiki, but seriously who the fuck has time to go manipulate some article on elephants or something? Like, you could say "elephants are not endangered anymore, in fact we should hunt them because there are too many". No one would do that.
But seriously, wikipedia is probably reliable 99% of the time.
Notice I didn't say 99.99%.

4. If you think that not voting is a revolutionary act that will in itself make a statement about who you are and what you feel, go with that.

And that's also why I don't bathe.

Did I miss any?

Don't forget people who want to have a sex-change operation.
Would you have someone that confused make any decision for you?

[therealsylvos]

ppl taht alwz tak lak a dis shld nt be alwd 2 vote!
PWND ROFLMAO
:Yea

[RedSkunk]

A joke thread with no punch line. Lame.

[Elfer]

At 10/16/07 06:31 PM, poxpower wrote: I know everyone likes to rag on wiki, but seriously who the fuck has time to go manipulate some article on elephants or something?

Wiki is generally good for stuff like that, but since this is a topic about politics, we're talking information on politics from Wiki, which is notoriously unreliable.

Incidentally, I watched one of my TAs alter the information in the chemical thermodynamics article on Wiki once.

[TonyTostieno]

At 10/16/07 03:58 PM, stafffighter wrote: 6. Marijuana activists: If your primary concern is something this short sighted and self serving I don't trust your vote

Does this mean I can't vote? I think it should be legalized but it sure as hell isn't my primary concern, there's more important things than smoking marijuana.

[PhoenixTails]

At 10/16/07 04:16 PM, Elfer wrote: Essentially, that's the biggest flaw of democracy. Your argument assumes that democracy is perfect in order to make your point.

Actually, I would have to say the biggest flaw of democracy is limiting the rights of the minorities.

[ImlunchBoxx]

okok you talked me into voting

[packow]

If you think that the issue of marijuana legalization is "simple and short sighted," you don't deserve to vote. You have no idea what you're talking about and It makes me sick that people who have a voice in the matter consider the issue to be "just about potheads wanting to get high." "Marijuana legalization" encompasses many important political issues. For example:

-The opinions of Doctors and Medical professionals vs. Political rhetoric (I want Doctors deciding whether a medicine is safe and effective, not the fucking supreme court, the DEA, the NIDA, and other political interests whose members, coincidently, have no medical training themselves!)

-States rights vs. Federal law (It seems like the republicans support states rights in every issue-- EXCEPT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, of course!)

-Patient's rights to privacy (Why does the government have the right to know about my medical conditions if I'm not a danger to others? Why does the government get to know what medicine I'm taking? Why does the DEA (who aren't doctors, they're law enforcement) get to have the final say in how much or what a doctor can prescribe?)

-Censorship of scientific research (Why does the NIDA have the right to deny any scientific study that might challenge their reefer madness view on marijuana? They've realized that, every time they've commissioned such a study, the results come back debunking practically all of their ludicrous, exaggerated lies. So what do they do? Deny funding to any study that threatens to provide evidence for the RELATIVE harmlessness of marijuana.

-Outright lying to the general public (Claiming that marijuana causes lung cancer, even though there has never been a single case of lung cancer caused by marijuana smoking alone-- and if you don't beleive me, look it up. Notice how they say "this many people die of cigarette smoking every year," but they only say "Marijuana contains 4x the amount of carcinogens as tobacco smoke and causes lung cancer-- BUT THEY NEVER SAY HOW MANY PEOPLE GET LUNG CANCER FROM MARIJUANA SMOKE. You know why? Because no one in recorded history ever has. I dare you to find me one person who a doctor has diagnosed with lung cancer due to marijuana smoking.)

I could go on and on but I have fucking work to do.

[Malachy]

At 10/16/07 11:03 PM, packow wrote: I could go on and on but I have fucking work to do.

the whole idea of marijuana reform as a political party is short sighted in that though the issues at hand are larger, but to have only one goal?

why not have a "lets make kitchen cutlery less sharp party"?

what happens after marijuana is decriminalized? what happens to the party? what happens to those people who obtained power under the party's wing? do you think they'll just up and say "oh, well, world fixed time to go home"?

[Proteas]

At 10/16/07 04:22 PM, slackerzac wrote: Why dont we just enbrace communism then? Thats always worked in the past.

What staff is proposing is that we only allow those individuals with an active interest in helping run this country be the only ones allowed to vote. I think we can easily determine who these people are once we cross reference the phone numbers of the individuals who called in to vote on their favorite American Idol and the local voter registration pool...

[packow]

At 10/16/07 11:12 PM, Malachy wrote:

At 10/16/07 11:03 PM, packow wrote: I could go on and on but I have fucking work to do.

the whole idea of marijuana reform as a political party is short sighted in that though the issues at hand are larger, but to have only one goal?

why not have a "lets make kitchen cutlery less sharp party"?

what happens after marijuana is decriminalized? what happens to the party? what happens to those people who obtained power under the party's wing? do you think they'll just up and say "oh, well, world fixed time to go home"?

Marijuana decriminalization is not going to go anywhere without those issues being addressed. I highly doubt that marijuana law reform would succeed without changes in the issues that I posted. However, in the highly unlikely even that marijuana is just decriminalized for no reason, then yes, those issues would likely be largely be left alone, unfortunately.

On a different but slightly related subject, the Richard Paey case is perfect evidence for why the country needs serious drug law reform.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/16/07 11:12 PM, Malachy wrote: the whole idea of marijuana reform as a political party is short sighted in that though the issues at hand are larger, but to have only one goal?
what happens after marijuana is decriminalized? what happens to the party? what happens to those people who obtained power under the party's wing? do you think they'll just up and say "oh, well, world fixed time to go home"?

This isn't a very good argument, mal. Name a party that wasn't initially established around a couple specific issues. What would happen? The party would broaden its focus. Look at the Green party. Initially centered around the environment, today featuring a complete leftist platform.

[SadisticMonkey]

People of religion obviously should be exempt, but hey, good luck with that.