http://statenews.com In a letter titled Voting not worth hassle if candidates not up to par (SN 11/6), Arthur Manoli gives excuses why his decision to not vote was a more educated and reasonable answer than voting. One of his excuses was that he would only be voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” so why vote at all. en-us Gryphon 2.2.3b-tsn (woodward)/Foundry5 Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:41:23 -0500 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27672 I have to disagree with you on this one Kevin. I’m a little put off by the whole “everybody get out and vote” agenda. Nobody is doing anyone else a favor by simply punching a ballot. The message should be “everybody educate yourselves, and then get out and vote.” Bush won the presidency (once) due to a demographic of uneducated voters. Middle America came out in droves to vote their ignorance. People who vote for the party and not the candidate should stay home on election day. There is a misguided notion in this country that democracy is at it’s best when the highest number of citizens vote. If we could take for granted that all of these citizens are educated, than I would agree. However, many of them are not educated. Keep in mind that majority rule doesn’t work in mental institutions. I agree that it’s hard to fathom being indifferent to every office and every proposal. However, if Manoli educated himself, and arrived, by his own logic, at a conclusion that he were better off not voting, that is completely fine with me. My 83 year old Grandmother decided not to vote for the first time since she was 20 years old. And she could tell you her exact reasons for this. You stated that Manoli has “done a great injustice to his country”. I think that injustice comes when people vote, or don’t vote, for no good reason. Anyone who goes to the polls without being educated is doing a “great injustice.” As is anyone who refrains from voting without an educated reason for doing so. If somebody arrives at an educated decision to vote, or to not vote, then there is no injustice. Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:52:14 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27672 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27689 I agree with the position that inherent in the right to vote is the right to refrain from voting. If someone doesn’t care enough about the issues or thinks that America is so corrupt that voting isn’t worth his time, I honestly don’t want that person to be voting. Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:48:09 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27689 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27719 I didn’t vote this year and the greater of 2 evils did take office…I really regret not voting! Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:41:25 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27719 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27736 I agree with what your saying Bill. I also wrote an opinion article that was in the paper last Tuesday about how people should become educated voters before going to the polls because people were just going to vote because it was the popular thing to do. Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:06:27 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27736 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27741 So Bill, does that mean all the educated voters decided NOT to come out and vote against Bush last election? These voters sure came out in droves to vote this year. We’ll see what happens when less exciting and charasmatic candidates take the stage in the post-Obama elections. I’m willing to bet that voter turnout will return to the disappointing voting turnouts we’ve had for a number of years. Sadly, it’s a two way street. Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:41:39 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27741 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27742 Bill—this isn’t really a slam on your post, but I tend to feel that ignorant votes represent a less than desirable percentage for both Dem and Repub candidates. Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:44:30 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27742 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27743 Sorry, I meant to say charismatic. Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:46:48 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27743 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27765 “Bush won the presidency (once) due to a demographic of uneducated voters.” do you have proof that people were uneducated? were people more educated this time? there is always going to be educated and uneducated voters. LIVE RIGHT Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:08:07 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27765 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27776 Yes, john, here’s the statistical evidence (from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, in additional input from various political scientists and demographers from across the country): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11south.html?emc=eta1 Cheers. Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:57:35 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27776 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27863 Indeed. If you look at a county map of the entire U.S., the counties that voted most overwhelmingly for Bush are the counties with the lowest percentage of college graduates. Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:41:23 -0500 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/27863