For many years now, when engaging in any sort of political talk or debate, I have had to tolerate hearing "you don't vote, so you're not entitled to an opinion." This argument boils my blood, and I want to hear some input on this subject, but not before I make my case.

Why is it such popular opinion that non-voters aren't entitled to their opinions in political discourse? Are we less educated, intelligent, or well-informed? Most certainly not. In fact, it's my personal opinion that most people who vote are not responsible enough to vote. They don't even look at the real issues, nor do they do the research or understand where the candidates stand. Many opinions are shaped by information found on the internet or in e-mails, and the people who swear by this "e-information" never seem to question the propaganda spread by these e-mails.

Other people vote strictly for their ticket. They pull the Republican or Democrat switch without even knowing a thing about the candidate they are voting for. This is highly irresponsible in my personal opinion, and the biggest reason that a 2-party system is destroying democracy. If you choose to vote, vote for the candidate, not their affiliation. But I am rambling and getting off topic here, so I digress.

What makes a voters opinion on politics more important than mine? Where in the constitution does the stipulation that one must vote to be entitled to freedom of speech exist? I am a responsible, taxpaying citizen who successfully contributes my skills to society, yet because I don't vote, I'm supposedly not allowed to disapprove of politicians. Why is it more acceptable for somebody who voted for Bush to criticize him than it is for somebody like me who didn't contribute to the election? For those of you who feel non-voters should keep their mouth shut when it comes to politics, how many of you have ended up disliking a candidate that you actually voted for? If you have, then what makes your opinion more valuable than mine considering the fact that you yourself contributed more to the problem than I have.

Consider this. A vast majority of candidates who win office win the popular vote (please do not start an argument involving the Bush election; I am well aware of the circumstances of his appointment to office in 2000). In the 2004 election, only 58.3% of the entire population voted. Of those that voted, 49% voted for Kerry or Nader. By these statistics, 28.567% of Americans actually did something to keep Bush out of office. Astonishingly, his disapproval rating is at 70%. Protest of his presidency is abundant, from t-shirts to bumper stickers to lawn signs. Does anybody question whether or not those who disapprove of Bush voted or who they voted for? Of course they don't because the "you can't have an opinion on politics if you don't vote" logic doesn't apply to those who AGREE with the popular opinion of the voters. It's only when there is a difference of opinion that this sentiment is used.

I'd like to hear some input on this. I am well aware of the forum rules on political debate, and my intentions of this post are not to start one. Please refrain from siding with a candidate in your responses, and keep your response limited to the subject of this post. I don't care who you like in the election, I only care to hear the logic of why non-voters are treated like 2nd-class citizens in political discussions. Please do not starta flaming war, as I'd like to see this thread make it a few posts before it gets locked down.

 

Your augment is convincing.

 

I can't imagine an intelligent person believing that drivel. All of our opinions are valid regardless of voter status.

 

Completely agreed X. Like I mentioned in the post, this argument is most commonly used when I don't agree with somebody and have good reason to back it up, and IMHO it's merely a way for some people to not have to question their own beliefs.

My own aunt yelled at and told me what I poor citizen I was when she was trying to get me to vote for my uncle for mayor of our town and I told her I didn't vote. Instead of stressing many of the same points I made in my post above like I usually do, I decided to handle this one differently. I said "Okay Aunt Betty, I'll register and vote. What's Uncle Sandy's opponents name?" She asked me why I wanted to know that. I said "Because I'd like to vote for him in the upcoming election." She huffed and stormed off and when I saw her at a family gathering 6 months later, she avoided eye-contact with me and did not even greet me as she usually would have.

 

Shoort's statement is what closed minded people say.

 

.

 

I know that, I'm agreeing with him.

 

I was just stating my opinion.

 

Thanks for letting me know that, I'm not sure why you directed that opinion toward me since I was already agreeing with it but if it makes you feel good then by all means....

 

More often than not, being a voter in an African country can be a perilous business, especially if it becomes known you fancy the opposition ! One look at Zimbabwe will confirm this.
Violence and political 'bullying' are rife - death is also fairly common.
I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion, however ill-informed it may be - what peeves me the most is when people with poor education/knowledge of the issues/candidates vote blindly on the 'ticket' without regard for the consequences.
9 times out of 10, people get the government they deserve.