Conference back40::soapbox

    Let's qualify this a little.
    
    While I agree in fair democracy (republic...whatever MadMike), while I
    celebrate the right of Everybody to cast a ballot, I somewhat empathize
    with the basenoter.  I hear some of the piss poor excuses why people
    vote for candidates and what not.  The first thing that comes to mind
    is, "How dare your vote be equal to mine you piss ant!"
    
    I would urge this.  Be it Buchanan or whomever, if you really feel that
    you hate Clinton, loathe his policies, his person or what have
    you...then prostitute yourself by actually voting for the man, it would
    be my hope you would strongly consider forgoing your right to vote in
    that election.  I don't believe it holding one's nose while casting a
    ballot.  Please stay home because you aren't doing the cause any good.
    
    If you must vote however, then protect yourself by
    wearing...errr...using the write in option!
    
    -Jack

    
     >I don't believe it (sic) holding one's nose while casting a
     >ballot.
    
    Especially not when it's those paper ones.  You have to hold them still
    while making the X.
    
    

    Good point!

    
    Not too good a point, or it makes a hole in the ballot.
    

    
    <----- oh, a wise guy

  .0  so, are you just urging us to refrain from voting, for no particular
      reason, or would you care to explain your rationale?

    Yes...gladly.  Your vote that you apparently don't care about carries
    equal weight to a vote that somebody deeply appreciates and covets. 
    They consider it an honor to participate in the electoral process and
    equate it with patriotism.  If you lack conviction or vision toward the
    person you choose, you are actually doing a disservice to the cause and
    you are minimizing the efforts of those who really care.  
    
    I have always been a staunch opponent of stunts like the Motor Voter
    Bill.  I find the concept insulting.  Why are we encouraging or
    attempting to encourage malcontents and imbecils to vote when the
    desire for them to vote is apparently the furthest thing from their
    mind?  Futhermore and let's be honest here, the Bill Clintons of the
    world thrive and rely upon the misinformed...since much of their
    constituency was somehow duped into believing they were entitled to a
    free lunch.  Hence he gets the vote of the unions and the gimme gimme
    special interest groups.  Now why on Gods green earth would I want to
    encourage that!?
    
    -Jack

    jack, you're an elitist.

    
    I don't see any problem with the Motor Voter Bill if it gets people
    registered!  Every town does it differently - when I lived in Stow, I
    had to go to the town office in person to register, and that particular
    office was only open 3 days a week during 10-2, or something stupid
    like that, and I worked in Tewksbury!
    
    I had to take time off from work to register to vote.  Now that's
    stupid.
    
    All I had to do to register in Shirley was to telephone the town hall.  
    

    
      Nobody in the USA has to vote.  Personally, I like to.  I'm more
     or less encouraged by good turnouts.
    
      I predict this year will be record turnouts, genuine interest,
     and very interesting and thorough, with lots of proposals and
     points of view expressed.
    
      It's a privilege to vote.
    
      bb

  ZZ    jack, you're an elitist.
    
    Splain please!!

>         <<< Note 659.7 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>    Yes...gladly.  

	Jack, who are you talking to?

    you want to keep voter registration down because you
    fear it would encourage the "imbeciles" to vote.  elitist.

 ZZ Jack, who are you talking to?
    
    I was speaking to you but my use of the word, "gladly", was not meant
    to be flippant.
    
    -Jack

    
>    I was speaking to you but my use of the word, "gladly", was not meant
>    to be flippant.

	well, you see, i was talking to the basenoter.  that's why
	i referred to .0.  i was asking the basenoter why the
	basenoter was urging us to not vote.  how you interpreted that
	to mean that i don't care about voting is beyond me, but
	anyways, hope this helps.

Jack, suppose I think both viable candidates stink, but one stinks worse than
the other (which I suspect is how I'll feel in November).  Are you suggesting
that I shouldn't vote for the less stinky candidate?

    Z   want to keep voter registration down because you
    Z   fear it would encourage the "imbeciles" to vote. 
    
    Not at all.  What I want is for people not to have to be cajoled
    into voting if they don't really want to!

    Bad people are elected by good people who fail to vote.

    
    <------
    
    My sentiments about the '92 presidential elections!!!!!
    

    
    	Oh, good ... another "Clinton bashing" topic.
    
    
    	Why would you want to force people to vote?  As was said, how
    	do you expect people to vote sensibly if they don't want to be
    	there?
    

	Jack, you don't want to encourage the "malcontents" to vote?
	What the hell kinda "reasoning" is behind _that_, pray tell?

    |What I want is for people not to have to be cajoled
    |into voting if they don't really want to!
    
    that's poop, jack, and you know it.  what so wrong about
    making it easier to register to vote?  nothing.

    Re: Malcontents...you are right about that one.  Improper word.  
    How about human weeds?  That's a famous word penned by a facist from
    the thirties.
    
    It is beyond me why anybody who spent the last three years in this file
    bad mouthing Clinton...would vote for Clinton.  

    Given the fact that any weed is ANY plant growing in the wrong place
    (IE unwanted) I fail to see your conotations.

    Alright....how abouuuuttt.....nincompoops!?

    
    Bill Clinton is your friend, he means you no harm

    Dole means no arm.

 .27  ;>

    
    Man!!! I've been busier than a one-armed pineapple picker lately!!
    

Perhaps some people don't think that their rights and freedoms should be 
subject to a vote.

    re: .27
    
     Yuk, yuk.

    
    Can't resist.  I understand in the Middle East, they have a
    saying - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  I choose to
    vote for the enemy of my enemy for now.  Politics makes
    strange alliances sometimes.

    Great...but who's your enemy?

    I vote when ever possible because female members of my family went on 
    hunger strike to fight for the right for women to vote.  However, for 
    the past 3 or 4 elections it's been very hard to choose a candidate to 
    vote for.  The last candidate that I felt was worth voting for died of
    cancer a couple of years ago, Gusty Hornblower, R - Groton MA.
    
    And, as I've heard LESS whining and name calling from overtired 3 year 
    olds than from this set of presidental candidates, this year will 
    be even harder.

    
    	I never understood the rationale behind a hunger strike, but
    	maybe, like most things, it's just me that's wondering why
    	someone would care if someone else was starving themselves.
    

By voting, one sanctions what is happening.  One participates with a vote, 
and implicitly gives permission, even if outvoted. If politicians, for example, 
say they're going to ban abortion(or handguns or whatever) and you're opposed 
to that and think they have no right to do that, when you vote, don't you 
implicitly agree that that "right" is up for grabs and that if they win, you 
lose the right? 

IMO, the proper way to stop politicians from attempting to legitimize taking 
our rights isn't to agree to a vote, but to let him or her know in no
uncertain terms that the right in question ISN'T UP for a vote.

If your livelihood depended directly on who was in office, wouldn't you vote?

I think this is in fact pretty close to what actually happens. Social
security recipients are probably the biggest coherent block of voters.

It's pretty sad that pork is a great big factor, and a lot of the rest don't
give a damn.

    
    There has always been a limited suffrage in this country.  Even now it
    is limited by an age requirement and a registration requirement.  the
    question then comes to whether it should be limited further. 
    Personally, I don't see the problem with making it slightly
    inconvienent to register.  If you can't find the time to register,
    maybe you don't need to waste your time voting either.
    
    Also, I agree that if you don't have an opinion on a candidate, don't
    bother to vote.  But, there will be a lot more going on this November
    then voting for the next President.  There are state and local
    elections, and ballot questions that may be of more interest to you. 
    It is not a requirement to vote on every race on the ballot.  Unlike a
    school test, it is perfectly fine to leave sections blank - a none
    vote.  If I know nothing about any of the candidates for a particular
    office, I will often not vote for that office.  But there are some
    races I feel very strongly about and will definitely place a vote in
    those races.
    
    One of the things that really gets me mad though is how many of the
    electorate vote as if they were still in high school voting for the
    prom king and queen.  I have heard time and time and time again about
    someone casting a vote for a particular candidate because they thought
    that person would win.  My God - what a lame and foolish reason to
    vote.  You should vote for the person who most closely represents your
    views on the issues of importance to you.  Any other reason is plain
    and simple a foolish waste of a vote.
    
    Note that if you are at complete odds with a candidate then voting
    against that person is reasonable.  I have a friend who likes to vote
    in the democratic primaries so he can vote against Teddy K. in the
    primaries and then again in the general election.  He claims it makes
    him feel better to know he voted against Ted twice in one election
    year.  His stance is that any candidate more closely represents his
    views the Ted ever would.
    
    But to cast a vote just so you can say you voted for the winner is
    awfully sophmoric.  Any person who does that should have their right to
    vote revoked.
    
    	Skip

    Hear that Bonnie?  We will have no more of this not voting for somebody
    because they resemble a fetus!

    hey, i would've voted for ike had i been old enough!!

    .35
    
    When you have few weapons to fight with, then you use what you can.
    
    Women at the turn of the century didn't even have rights to their
    own children, few owned property or had money of their own, and 
    none of them had any rights worth speaking of.  
    
    

    Then how come Dr. Quinn is so revered?!  Seems like ABC is doing a
    great injustice to the history of women's issues?

    Jack,
    
    If you believe the "historical stuff" on television, it explains to me
    why you seem to be missing a lot of bits around history and race
    relations.
    
    meg

    Well I don't.  But what I'm implying here is that the liberal networks
    are promoting revisionism.

    .43
    
    Couldn't comment, don't watch Dr. Quinn.  I prefer entertainment that
    uses at least half of my brain power.  

   .46  primo straight line alert.

    Dr. Quinn Medicine Wench?
    
    hell, they don't even know what Colorado Springs, CO is supposed to
    look like! 

    Getting back to the subject.  I was listening to a caller on CSPAN who
    just turned 18 and was from Nashua High School.
    
    After listening to this child, I have become somewhat convinced the
    voting age should be raised to 21.  It is apparent most 18 year olds
    make these kinds of decisions emotionally instead of logcally; and most
    of them pretty much emulate how their parents vote.
    
    I think that until they've had a taste of taxation and all the other
    goodies that come with federalism, their vote should be taken away.  21
    is a heck of alot better than 18.
    
    -Jack

Jack, most voters of all ages vote based more on emotions than logic.
Besides, your sample of one is suspect.

    If they can raise the drinking age, why not the voting age?  Same
    principle.

    
    	RE: .46
    
    	Like "Melrose Place", perhaps?
    

re .51:

The right of 18-year-olds to vote is in the Constitution.

    >I think that until they've had a taste of taxation and all the other
    >goodies that come with federalism, their vote should be taken away.  21
    >is a heck of alot better than 18.

My son has been paying Federal and State income taxes for two years, and he is 
only 17. Sales tax has also been an issue for at least that long. Should he have 
been able to vote two years ago? What would be the justification for making
him wait until 21?

    Then it should be changed by golly because they jest ain't smaht enuff
    yet.  

    re: .53
    
    So are a lot of things that are currently ignored...

    Mind you, I'm not suggesting we stray further from the Constitution, I
    was just trying to make a point.

    Most 18 year olds are still a mirror image of the ones who raised them.
    Therefore, it can be assumed the child is merely going to emulate the
    vote of the parent/guardian.
    
    
    Kind of like when democrat politicians bus in senior citizens and
    brainwash them into voting for their guy.  That's the ticket.

ya, dems are just a bunch of brainwashed old farts!  :)

    But of course!!!!

    -1 Should you be saying that?

    Sure...why not!