I believe that voting in local elections is important, but I am beginning to believe that voting in national elections may be a sham.
I read this post and it has me thinking: http://vigilantamerican.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-voting-is-saps-game...
What are your thoughts?
Voting is not a "Sap's game". It's your only chance to formally support your political position.
OTOH, just in case you hadn't noticed (and apparently the author of the linked article hadn't), the overall party agenda and platform HAS ALWAYS been ultimately determined by the "party elite"
Going to the linked article, I would point out the long-previously announced agenda of the Ron Paul campaign was to attempt the re-introduction, and forcing debate on a Dr. Paul's primary campaign platform, a candidate agenda that had been previously rejected by a significant majority of Republcans voting in the various primaries and caucuses. Dr. Paul did not command sufficient delegate votes to force a floor debate on his platform, and according to the rules of the political game, it was game over for that platform for this election cycle.
The basic political rule of thumb is that you lose this time, you work harder to win next time.
These are beginning to be my thoughts as well, Jack
I don't think voting is a saps' game exactly, but I do think there is far to much emphasis on national elections when it is state and local elections that really have the much more direct impact on your day to day lives.
It could be argued that with the size of our voting population, the individual vote does not count for much, but as close as many of our elections have been of late, I would disagree. I mean, in modern times, a "landslide" victory is 52 percent. Civil Wars have been fought over wider margins than that joke.
You are right on from my perspective, Michael
It could be argued that with the size of our voting population, the individual vote does not count for much
It depends on what state you live in (for Presidential elections, anyway).
Those Czechs are smart people, I have met a few and I respect their intellect, but more so their wisdom...
Mencken was right. The man's name was Warren G. Harding.
Not sure if I would use that exact language but in national elections our vote doesn't matter all that much. I live in Texas so I sort of have the luxury of not having to make a tough decision about voting for Romney. Romney will win the delegates from Texas and everyone knows it. I will probably be writing in Ron Paul. If I were in a swing state my vote would matter a little more and I would have to weigh the consequences of voting or not voting for Romney. Due to this some people stay home and not vote because it is for the most part useless for them to vote which makes the popular vote basically worthless as any sort of indicator.
@Paul of TX:
You could be a conservative living in California. Not only have the national seats been ceded to the Democratic Party, neither of the two major candidates are bothering to campaign here, unless there's a multi-thousand dollar-a-plate fundraiser involved.
Heck, I'm not even seeing a whole lot of bumper stickers, compared with '08.
Although I will say the new "Top Two Runoff" formula during the Primaries made the local races interesting...it was the first time I'd seen my district's long-serving Congressman actually doing "on the bricks" campaigning where a working man was likely to see him.
I was looking at some article the other day and they actually had Texas in the almost a lock category rather than the firm lock category for Romney. I figured the author was braindamaged.
I still vote my Dem or third party votes though, and am still thankful that I am not in Jackson-Lee's district so I don't have to vote Rep there.
am still thankful that I am not in Jackson-Lee's district
Being from Atlanta and having suffered through Cynthia McKinney I can completely appreciate that sentiment. I was fortunate to be in a neighboring district.