Ayup, it seems most people vote for someone because they are voting against another.
I still wonder: if both parties are essentially evil, then why not vote for no party? Vote against both by not voting at all. Instead of screwing over one, screw them both over by abstaining your vote (if registered).
Voting is a right, after all, and not an obligation. That is still something that bugs me until this day (enough, everyone. I'm sick of everyone hounding me to make one insignificant vote. It's MY right, I choose not to use it; I trust nobody, therefore I decide not to vote whatsoever. I respect those that have fought for preserving my right, and I practice my right by choosing not to use it yet.). My only rational worry about the registered, but not voting, route that I see is that there's still the likelihood of vote hijacking in order to rig election victories (happens almost all the time with the deceased, and I have yet to see this problem fixed). But still, if you don't like either party or candidate, vote neither or (D) none of the above.
I'm aware it still seems rather illogical, but I figure if even 1 vote matters, then I wonder how much it matters when it's not used? Multiply those numbers en masse, and I wonder what would really happen? How much of an effect would a mass abstinence make? Even if it would never likely happen, I can imagine, how would the public take it? How would politicians react? How would their backers and SuperPacs take it? How would the media spin this one? I'm surprised this question never came up even as a hypothetical thought. Sounds like something Anonymous can screw around with. 2012 election, DDoS the election voting servers, and prevent any votes from coming through until after the vote counting due date (turn the US into Florida during Bush/Gore); or hack the final tally to be a dead-heat tie between R/D/I (or a nobody wins ending). And why stop with just the president? Do this for all the positions.
Sure, it may come off as treason by tampering with the votes, but it can possibly make people think of just how practical the voting system really is. Come and think of it, if the voting system could be hacked and adjusted; why don't hackers, post-voting, take all ther listed votes and IDs, and utilize some sort of checking software to cross-reference the voter indexes with the obituatries and death census indexes, and correct the amount of ill-gotten votes, and eventually, leak the difference to the public? What would be worse? Potential mass voter fraud, or the "treason" of ensuring that they're all legit and we have an honest election for once?
Of course, we'd have to hope that the hackers responsible would be good sports about if the person they voted for (post-correcting) legitimately lost, and not try to tamper any further themselves.
Author
Topic: We're too late, Obama signed ACTA (Read 43200 times)