[hak8or]

You are going to vote though, correct? Lesser of two evils and all that.

If you do not make your voice known, you will be out into the same camp as voter apathy, at which point why should those running care about you if you don't vote?

[Proziam]

Supporting either party at this point goes against my moral values. Both parties support war (or other violent action) and I refuse to support any such action that isn't purely defensive. That issue alone is a disqualifying factor for me, and I care about more than one issue.

That said, I'll continue to support individual issues I care about, and I'll happily call my reps to tell them how they could earn my vote.

[sykick]

People running for office ought to care about all of the people in their voting district. Children can't and don't vote but their interests ought to be looked after by politicians. Wouldn't it be a sad state of affairs that those who run for office are only expected to care about people who can potentially and directly help them? I believe we Americans have mostly come to the point of accepting this as normative.

[salawat]

The real issue is that voting anyway doesn't solve the problem of not having a truly representative candidate, and a two party system which has a duopolistic stranglehold on the moral character of the nation.

The correct approach is to run and compete, but the disparity in financial amplification created by the two established parties keeps anything from being able to take root.

[mint2]

Unfortunately there is a large number of people who somehow feel apathy and silence is the best way to get attention in a huge crowd of people making their choices known.

Our culture is good at creating very individualistic princes and princes. No compromise whatsoever. My way or the highway.