(4 pm. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
If an election does not have a candidate who a voter sees as being worthy of support, not voting is a positive, if not a required, action. In today’s political climate, who would you actually vote for for President? Let’s take a look:
Obama – At least this time you’ll know what you’re voting for. I didn’t vote for him. I won’t vote for him this time.
Ummm…it looks like the Dems aren’t going to have anybody else running (well, supposedly Randall Terry is going to run against Obama in the primaries).
What about the Republicans?
Ron Paul – Paul’s interesting, but as with other Libertarians liberty is in the eye of the beholder. Stray outside of the particular Libertarian liberty and you’ll find yourself not enjoying the protection of a Libertarian society.
The rest – Bwahahahahahahahahahaha
So, you’ll have a choice of the joker Obama and a Republican joker. You’ll have a choice of a bad President (Obama) and a probable worse Republican. So, as always it seems, you’ll have a choice between bad and worse.
Knowingly voting for bad is, well…voting for bad. Knowingly. Doing so, in my view, is not positive. It’s bad. And, what’s worse is that the act of voting for the bad just continues to encourage the bad. I suppose voting for the bad is better than voting for the worse, but voting for the bad is still voting for the bad.
I don’t see voting for the bad over the worse as being worthwhile, so given the choice, I won’t vote (where I live, you can’t write in a candidate unless they are a declared write-in candidate, and I don’t see anybody running as an independent who’s worth voting for). Perhaps someone will come out of the woodwork who’s worth voting for. So far, I haven’t seen anybody worth wasting the time on.