Rigs wrote on Jul 2, 2015, 16:37:
So, wait, you're telling me that by voting for the candidate I don't like, I'm affecting more change than by not voting at all?! What?! You guys are crazy!

Imagine if those who didn't see a candidate they liked refused to vote at all. All of them. Say only (pulling from thin air here) only 5% vote - for a presidential election. You don't think they're not going to notice? And even if they don't, the media will, and that is the point. The media will harp up and down that our confidence in respectable, electable candidates has disappeared, dried up. It won't effect that election, but bet your ass the two parties will think twice about running the same old song an dance again.

You're not going to affect change by voting for the other guy. What message does that send? They'll just think, like with Obama, that he was popular or had a popular message, not that everyone hated both candidates. Besides, I'm not going to know who will win, so how am I to know who to vote for? If I don't like either one, which one do I choose? It's stupid. Not voting sends a clear message that I don't like the established set of candidates and until such time as someone comes along that I think will actually be a benefit to this country, I will continue to keep my vote silent. Your method is madness and does nothing to help the larger problem!


=-Rigs-=