This is decidedly a cheap shot, but I seem to recall a popular sentiment that says "if you don't vote, don't bitch."

"So, score one for Democrats. They get the House, and the terrorists are definitely bolder now than they were before the election."

The election's over. That kind of talk was suppose to drive turnout. It did, but not in the way that you'd prefer, apparently. Brace yourself for 1000% tax increases, forced gay relationships, and aformal declaration that the US is an Islamic republic. Right? I'd hate to call anyone a liar.

-Ethan

Ethan,

Regarding "if you don't vote, don't bitch..." I point to my previous statements. A vote made merely by the boredom of flipping a coin, which is all my vote would have been when the only two parties available have made it perfectly clear that they don't want my vote? I might as well stay home.

As for the rest:
1000% tax increase? Not bloody likely. Tax increases? Possible. We'll have to see what the future holds. Democrats always talk a good game on "lowering taxes for the middle class" and then continually redefine the "middle class" out of what the middle class actually is. If not for their historical record of doing so, I might agree with them; I do agree that tax loopholes for multibillionaires and giant corporations should be shut down.

Forced gay relationships? Again, I don't think so. If you haven't ever read anything I said on the subject, my opinion on homosexuality is that I feel it is immoral, but I feel that cohabitation out of wedlock is also questionable, and neither rise to the level that the government ought to ban them. On the flipside, I oppose gay marriage because I don't believe the government has compelling interest in <b>promoting homosexuality</b>. And I'll point out, for those who claim that homosexuality is something are born with: one of the Houston Comets recently came out that she had "become" lesbian and specifically said she was not born one, and Boy George's former lover is now happily married with 3 kids.

Formal declaration that the US is an Islamic republic? I refer you to CAIR's own statement: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant." I don't think the Democrats are there yet, but I find it remarkably humorous that one of their newest additions is a former national spokesman for Nation of Islam and has participated in racist rallies and causes many times.

But, whatever. If you want to set up a strawman and knock it down, go right ahead.

I gotta agree with Ethan here. You choose not to vote, your right to complain is at the least seriously diminished. In fact, you have more right to complain if the guy you voted for is the one that you're pissed off at.

Where there's a Libertarian Party, there's a protest to be made. It's partly about who you vote for, but it's mostly about choosing to participate in the process. Or choosing not to.

/In Palestine? Democrats get elected, and Hamas is openly calling for attacks on Americans all of a sudden. Why? Because the Democrats are the cut-and-run party, and Bill Clinton never did call out Arafat for his support of terror, so Hamas probably expects Pelosi to do likewise and start trying appeasement there too./

To the extent that these two are connected (and they may be), it goes to show how little they know about our government. Foreign policy with respect to Israel is largely an executive matter. The Democrats in congress may be able to stop if they wanted to, but that would hurt them politically and there would be no political benefit from doing so (there is political benefit for a president to sell out Israel, however).

/Oh, and I'm just waiting to see what Pelosi's stand on the border is going to be. Dobbs has been going on about the "War on the middle class" being waged by both political parties; I'm starting to think he's right./

I sometimes forget that I can never underestimate the silly sense of beleaguerment the middle class feels regarding the government's treatment of them. If anything, the government focuses far too much on the middle class. But that's a discussion for another time.

RAW,

Perhaps you can explain to me the difference, then: especially since I didn't support the libertarian candidate either.

Stone & Parker had it right: when your choice is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, not voting might be just as good as voting.

And I blame the various political parties for making it that poor of a choice.

Just to make sure I answer the right question, the difference between what? The difference between voting for the Libertarian and not voting at all or the difference between voting for the Libertarian that you didn't support and voting for the Republican/Democrat that you didn't support?

The difference between (a) voting for someone I don't support (when I don't support anyone running, not even the publicized write-in candidates), (b) refusing to vote (e.g. walking in, "filling out" and handing in a blank ballot), and (c) just staying home.

Every candidate in this election failed to earn my vote. Therefore giving it to any one of them, at least in my thinking, would be dishonest.

I'm sorry Mike, but I just don't buy the "I didn't vote because I knew exactly how it was going to end up" bit. Not voting is a sign of ignorance, apathy, or both, and none of the above help you, your city, your state, or your country. And that's more unpatriotic than opposition to any war.

Linus;

As far as the governor's and my local congressional races, I didn't know how it was going to turn out, but I've explained my point there already: none of them earned my vote, so giving it to any of them would make me something of a hypocrite.

As far as the various bond issues (which is the thing I say above that I did already know the outcome for), I'd agree with you, but Houston and the surrounding cities have a history of doing this for years. Bond issues here routinely show up on a ballot until enough fools will click "yes" without thinking about them, whether they've been rejected by the voters before or not, and since there are elections held every 6 months in some form or another, it's pretty easy to slip something by.

Me, on the other hand, didn't vote because there was no one worth voting for. I think this is decidedly different than casting a vote for the "lesser evil" and then bitching about it. Quite frankly it sickens me that people vote for who they think has a better chance of winning rather than the candidate who would do the best job. You see that type of thinking a lot which is lost on me. "This candidate is more like what I think than the one I really want, so I'll vote for him since I think he has a better chance of beating the OTHER guy." It's crazy, and definitely keeps the system a 2 party system.

I suspect there are a lot more independants out there than people realize, and if they all voted the way they truly felt instead of who they thought had the best chance of winning, you'd see a dramatic change.

Mike,

The difference is that in scenarios A and B, you participated in the process. In C, you took your ball and went home.

Ideally, every state should have a "none of the above" option like Nevada does so that you can register your protest more formally. Absent that, the best option, if you absolutely can't support any candidate and view them all as "equally awful", is to throw your support behind someone that can't win. That's why I mentioned the Libertarian candidate. It's gotten some notice in the mountain west that the Libertarian votes may have swung some races.

I mention the Libertarians specifically because they are almost always on the ballot. Whatever third party or independent on the ballot would suffice. Whether you agree with their platform or not, a "protest vote" is still a vote.

A hypocrite is not one that makes a tough decision between undesirable options. Or else we're all hypocrites in life because we're frequently confronted with choices that we'd rather not have to make. A hypocrite is one that washes his hands of the pinnacle of civic debate and then complains about what happens afterwards.

Elections come down to making a decision between the choices that you have. That's life. To cry that you don't have the choices you want and take your ball and go home is the height of civic immaturity.

When you vote for a candidate you don't care that much for (or one that can't win), you can at least say that you worked with what you were given.

On a broader scale, the thing to consider when it comes to civic activity is to ask yourself what would happen if everyone did what you did. If everyone that were dissatisfied voted for a screwball Libertarian, the major parties would at least notice that there are votes out there to be had (much as they did in 1992). When nobody votes, the election and the focus go towards those that did.

2004 produced a record turnout for cultural conservatives who voted for a candidate that really hasn't done that much for them. The result? In 2006, they often had two parties to choose from because the Democrats realized they couldn't sidestep the issue. Had they voted for the Constitution Party or someone else in large numbers, that would also have been noticed. Had they stayed home, on the other hand, the message of 2004 was that secular issues were where it's at.

Regarding the bonds, I agree that it often is a bum deal. However, when these things fail, they more often than not come back retooled. When the basketball arena originally shot down, it came back with a slightly better deal for the taxpayers and got the support of a number of groups that opposed the original deal.

The CCISD frequently had bonds fail and when they came back, they were a little bit leaner and they passed. Why? Because they weren't facing a complacent electorate. If they were, they would get everything on the first fell swoop and probably go for the gold asking for the moon and stars.

Kavey,

Like I said to Mike, it's not really about supporting one candidate or another, it's participating -- and demonstrating that you are willing to partipate -- in democracy. To the extent that independents and moderates don't go to the polls, they deserve what they get and they perpetuate the two-party decision just as much as those that choose between the two most likely options.

There's a Libertarian in nearly every race. We had a whopping four candidates for governor. If it's the two party system that you oppose, you had options. Maybe not ideal options, but that's life and waiting for it to "correct itself" is the road to nowhere.

This was a very dispiriting election for me and for a lot of others (referring to the options, not the results). But we made the decisions that somebody had to make. People that made the tough decisions have more standing to complain about the decision-making process than those that refused to, whether they voted for the guy they're complaining about or not.

Raw:

"That's why I mentioned the Libertarian candidate. It's gotten some notice in the mountain west that the Libertarian votes may have swung some races."

- I have to disagree with this mindset. What this mindset says is that the votes belong either to the Republicans or Democrats by default. I don't believe that is the case. Yes, the big two parties have done a wonderful job establishing brand identity and brain-dead loyalists, but no political party or candidate automatically deserves any vote.

They have to EARN them.

Just being on the ballot isn't enough for someone to earn my vote. You have to have a good platform, show that you mean what you say, and earn enough of my respect that I'm willing to vote for you.

Declaring that voting for libertarians "swung" a race is declaring that the libertarian somehow stole votes that another guy deserved, which is BS. In that respect, I agree with Friedman, who was outraged when the Bell campaign started to call for him to resign from the governor's race because he was "stealing" Bell supporters and tipping the race for Perry.

Now, if there was a "none of the above" option, then I would have chosen it. But it is an undesirable feature of our craptacular "touch screen" system in Houston that it is designed not to allow people to abstain from races; it requires a vote in every race before it'll let you finish. I found this out the last election I voted in.

Ethan,

Regarding terrorists and following up a bit:

<a href="http://english.aljazeera.ne...">Syria's pretty damn happy the Democrats won</a>.

<a href="http://www.irna.com/en/news...">So is Iran</a>.

Ouch.

My point was not that those people should have voted Libertarian or that the race was stolen and that should be obvious since I am actually telling people that are sufficiently dissatisfied to vote for the Libertarian (or Green, Reform, or Natural Law). My point is that those votes are getting noticed and that a statement was made. Ethan's vote for Kinky, which I disagreed with, made the same statement of protest.

As far as the "earning my vote" thing is concerned, a candidate can win no matter how many people don't vote. In fact, some candidates -- generally incumbents -- prefer fewer voters because it increases the likelihood that they will win. A candidate cannot win, a party cannot survive, and the system cannot continue unchanged if people vote but do not vote for those in power. No one in power gives a damn that you didn't vote. There are a couple candidates in the inner-northwest that very much give a damn that people voted for the Libertarian over them.

Not voting does not signal that that neither character earns your vote. It signals that you do not care who wins and loses. If you don't care, power to you and all that, but don't ask me to take your opinions as seriously as those that actually participated. Through your actions you've just told the government that you don't care and actions speak a lot louder than words on a blog.

On a sidenote, I find the notion that you have to vote in every race absurd. That really ought to be changed, if it hasn't been. My ballot in Austin had no such requirement. It also wasn't the case the last time I voted in Harris County, but I may have been voting on a different machine model. And it was a special election (bond issues and soforth), so maybe that had something to do with it.

Did anyone else in Harris County (or elsewhere) have a machine that required them to vote in every race?

RAW,

As for your statement that my lack of vote won't be noticed, I suppose you're right. But I consider that better than an incorrect assumption by whichever political party that I somehow supported the Libertarian or some other candidate.

As for the voting machines, it's entirely possible they are set up differently or even a different model out in Austin. What they do here (or at least did last election, when I tried to abstain from one of the various City Propositions) is pop up a prompt if you haven't voted in a given race, and the prompt keeps popping up until you've voted in every race; it doesn't take "no vote" for an answer.

The last election as in 2004 or 2005?

RAW,

the last election meaning 2005 (the one Bill White was up for reelection in).

Strange. I'd thought that off-year machines were the same ones as congressional year elections as they're both run by the county. It would appear that either the city uses different machines or they were configured differently from biannual congressional elections.

Anyone out there familiar with why this might be?

RAW,

As far as I know they are the same machines. But did you bother trying not to vote in any of the elections in 2004?

The problem's a basic software problem: it "nags" you to vote for someone until you do. I think this is possibly part of the reason why Sekula-Gibbs managed to win the special election while losing the general (where thanks to a f'ed-up court decision it had to be a write-in): plenty of dumb people at the polls probably voted straight-ticket Republican, saw an "oops you didn't vote in the 22nd", and then just clicked the Democrat box and said "too bad the Republicans didn't run anyone."

And yes, I know campaigning was going on, but from cognitive science we also understand quite well that the human brain is amazingly adept at leaving off every bit of information that is not both (a) 100% relevant to what we are doing and (b) right in front of our noses.

I was in Idaho in 2004, but Adam doesn't vote in unopposed races and he's never had a problem. I didn't have a problem in 2002 (Harris County) or 2006 (Travis County), in both times I passed on some judicial races that were either unopposed (in 2002) or didn't know much about (in 2006).

Without going into too many details, Mike you are wrong about the machines. I skipped a LARGE NUMBER of Harris County races that only had Republican candidates. It never nagged me. Maybe it's because I scrolled through every page, but I *DID NOT* cast a vote in every race. Same in the election you claim to have trouble with, the last city election. I cannot think of an election where I voted in EVERY race, and I have NEVER been nagged about it.

As for my choice in the un-expired term election where it was Sekula-Gibbs and a bunch of other no-name Republicans, Tammy and I voted for the Libertarian. Do you think I support the Libertarian? No, but the more votes he got the less support would be shown for unopposed SS-G.

Adam,

Maybe they fixed it in 2006, or something. I don't know. I know what my experience was in November 2005, and the machine I was on nagged incessantly about needing a vote for every race.

>>I gotta agree with Ethan here. You choose not to vote, your right to complain is at the least seriously diminished. In fact, you have more right to complain if the guy you voted for is the one that you're pissed off at.<<

I must have missed the clause in the First Amendment that tied political speech to voting.

Or maybe I missed the clause in McCain-Feingold that did it?

:)

>>The problem's a basic software problem: it "nags" you to vote for someone until you do. I think this is possibly part of the reason why Sekula-Gibbs managed to win the special election while losing the general (where thanks to a f'ed-up court decision it had to be a write-in): plenty of dumb people at the polls probably voted straight-ticket Republican, saw an "oops you didn't vote in the 22nd", and then just clicked the Democrat box and said "too bad the Republicans didn't run anyone."<<

Nobody saw that. The e-Slate machines didn't have a nag screen this time.

I don't recall that being the case in the past either, but maybe it was. Someone could email Beverly Kaufman and find out I bet.

Heh... prior to McCain-Feingold assuring someone that they of course had the Constitutional and legal right to say something was unnecessary. Now, of course, it's not a given anymore! :)

So yeah, you (as in the nonspecific second person) have a Constitutional right to voice your opinion regardless of whether or not you voted or how you voted if you did. I am focusing more on moral standing, where one's participation in democracy does affect how seriously some people ought to be taken. It's analogous, in my mind, to someone that keeps skipping out on jury duty complaining about multi-bazillion dollar civil suit verdicts or especially light/heavy sentencing. They of course have the Constitutional right to say whatever they want, but in some sense their words ring much more hollow (to my ears, anyway).

RAW-
I don't disagree at all with your statements, and I'm not saying that I'm waiting for it to correct itself, and I agree people should get out and make a difference, but if all the candidates suck, why should I have to vote for the one that sucks the least? I find that quite discouraging.

And although you do point out there's a Libertarian candidate on many ballots, I will have to point out that I am not a Libertarian. I am an independent. I do share many views of the Libertarian party, but at the same time I feel the American populace is too ignorant or lazy for Libertarians to succeed.

I'm not saying I will never vote, I am saying I'm not going to vote for the least bad person.

Ahh, but the beauty of the Libertarian option is that you don't have to be a Libertarian. Heck, even if you are a libertarian, you may not want to elect those people because many of them are nutbars. The chief advantage to voting Libertarian is that it's the equivalent of a "none of the above" vote... more likely to get noticed than a non-vote (as it is in the mountain west right now) with the same affect of not lending support to either of the main two candidates.

As far as voting for the lesser of two evils, we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me that only works if they two are relatively equally evil. If you have a case where Rick Perry (lesser evil) is running against Cynthia McKinney (much greater evil), it's somewhat irresponsible to risk putting McKinney in power just cause you don't like Perry.

To follow up on some of the points that were raised upthread, I didn't vote for Kinky solely as a "protest" vote, but rather, he earned my vote. Bell struck me as an uninspired, at times desperate candidate.

I voted Libertarian early and often, for what that was worth. There were a few Lib candidates that I thought would have won but unless I'm glossing over them, they went 0-for-Texas. Also, technically there were 6 candidates for Governor, although I think one was a write-in.

RE: Countries in the Middle East being happy the Dems won, so is England.

Interesting that "they stole our votes" wasn't the theme of this year's election, after all of the pre-hype about the eeeeevil voting machines and the eeeeevil poll workers. Not that there weren't any problems anywhere, but again, unless I'm filtering it out I'm not seeing/hearing much in the way of "stealing" accusations.

Finally, reading through the early voting results straight-party voting was pretty prevalent, which made my stomach churn. Claims that the election "meant" [whatever] are blunted by the fact that a fair number of people "just" voted the slate and walked away. To me, that's a pretty big rock in terms of influencing future elections.

-Ethan

Ethan,

I wouldn't have mentioned it if you hadn't... but I do find it interesting how voting machines are only evil and elections are only "fixed" when Republicans win. I don't have time to find it, but at least one person wrote a column before the election saying that either the Democrats would win or the Republicans would have cheated and democracy in the United States was gone.

You can bet that had the election gone the other way, the meme for many would very much have been that the election was stolen yet again.

One definite bright side to this is that it should put an end to a lot of the conspiracy talk. Well, unless the Republicans ever win again. :)

Straight ticket voting is a bane to democracy, but it certainly does "mean" something... it's the clearest indicator that we have of people that would vote for a yellow dog or turkey sandwich if they carried the right party label. If such voting carries a majority all by its self, there's a message in there for the other party.

Raw-

Point well taken. I may have to rethink the stance.

RAW, just as a side note - Saying that voting Libertarian is the equivalent of voting "none of the above" is kind of insulting, to both the Libertarian candidates and their supporters. These people are running or voting that way because they want to see a change, not just to spite those in power.

PZ

A couple of my best friends are Libertarians and more than a few are lowercase-l libertarians (a group which would have included me half a decade ago). I don't think I have much to apologize for. In fact, I'd say that I'm being quite generous to them in my support.

I'm telling people to vote for them even when they don't agree with them. If more people did that, the Libertarians would become a much bigger party and their views would have a bigger podium from which to be heard and they'd have a chance to pick up more bonafide members of the party, which ought to be their goal.

But until or unless that happens, they are the anti-establishment, anti-government party. As the "changes" that they want to make are essentially undoing nearly everything done by the major two parties, they're the ultimate no-confidence vote aimed at both parties.

I ended up surprising myself by liking the Libertarian running against Hutchinson a ton, and voting for him. He make a rather good showing, in fact.

So... how's the book coming?

33,000 words!

Voting is not the only, nor even the most important aspect of public citizenship. There are myriad ways to contribute to the public good, to be a good citizen, other than through voting. If one rejects the notion that any of the possible candidates represent me in any given instance, I fail to see how specifically choosing not to vote, thereby signaling your distate with the putative representatives, diminishes one's moral standing as a voice in the polity.

You've made an eloquent case, Alex, but I ultimately disagree (quite seriously, actually). I loathe organized politics, and it is because I am deeply skeptical about political/representational efficacy in general (I think the notion that any given politican actually represents my interests is deeply problematic) that I tend to refrain from voting (note: this is not the same as saying that I do not take the time to be informed, or that politics is inconsequential).

I respectfully disagree that my position somehow lessens my moral standing to participate in public discourse or critique features of the political economy that I disagree from.

I really don't think voting is connected to moral standing as a citizen. What about those citizens who take not one single solitary moment of time to educate themselves about any of the candidates? Is their moral standing as a participant superior to one who actively participates in all other measures of citizenship, is acutely informed, but chooses not to vote? That's a dubious proposition, IMO.

/Voting is not the only, nor even the most important aspect of public citizenship./

I don't disagree with this statement.

/What about those citizens who take not one single solitary moment of time to educate themselves about any of the candidates? Is their moral standing as a participant superior to one who actively participates in all other measures of citizenship, is acutely informed, but chooses not to vote? That's a dubious proposition, IMO./

I affirmatively agree with this statement.

I would take someone like you or Michael considerably more seriously than someone that votes in every election but is blissfully unaware of what they are voting for or against. But where I disagree with Michael and with you is that not-voting is the moral equivalent (or somehow superior) to not voting, from a civic standpoint. So in that sense, in my eyes, it inherently diminishes ones standing when discussing and critiquing our government. I won't take their ideas on issues any less seriously, but when they do complain specifically about the actions of the government that they declined to vote for or against, I am less likely to take what they have to say about that seriously.

The distinction between abstract issues and governance and critiquing of the government that we have is one that I have not kept clear in this discussion.

Alex,

"So in that sense, in my eyes, it inherently diminishes ones standing when discussing and critiquing our government."

But it can't be inherent, as you agreed, because someone who votes but knows nothing about the candidates surely has less moral standing to civic discourse than one who thinks deeply about issues and candidates and articulates a defensible (even if you disagree with it) case for abstaining. If the moral worth you observe truly were inherent, you are necessarily committed to arguing that the mere act of voting itself is ethically superior to the act of not-voting.

But you don't hold that, if I'm reading your agreement with me correctly. Sometimes, the agent who does not vote may have greater moral standing to participate in civic discourse than the one who votes robotically.

If so, what this means is that the moral worth you attach to voting is contingent, rather than necessary, and its worth is contingent upon the extent of the quality of the act. It's not just the act of voting itself that has moral worth; it's the quality of that vote that bestows moral worth. I think the same is true for not-voting. Some voting has little moral worth; some has a great deal. Some not-voting has little moral worth, some has a great deal.

The upshot of all of this is that whether not-voting bestows moral standing to civic discourse is necessarily contextual, and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

"I won't take their ideas on issues any less seriously, but when they do complain specifically about the actions of the government that they declined to vote for or against, I am less likely to take what they have to say about that seriously."

I think you're hair-splitting (unclear to me how you're going to be able to parse out what I say that you should take seriously from what I say that you should not). but even if you are not, I don't agree with your basic premise that unless you vote, your ability to critique any given government is of lesser moral import. What about permanent residents who can't vote? Perhaps that's different, you might say, because they never had the choice.

But that renders the mere ability to vote itself as the locus of moral worth, which we already agreed is a dubious notion (because the mere act of voting doesn't seem to be a very good proxy for good citizenship).

/But it can't be inherent [that not voting diminishes one's standing when discussing gov't], as you agreed, because someone who votes but knows nothing about the candidates surely has less moral standing to civic discourse than one who thinks deeply about issues and candidates and articulates a defensible (even if you disagree with it) case for abstaining. /

What I'm trying to say is that all other things being equal, not voting diminishes civic moral standing as I define it. Therefore if you take two people that are aware of the issues and activists outside electoral politics, and one votes and the other does not, I assign greater moral weight to the latter. If you take two other people, both of whom could identify Count Chocula before they would Nancy Pelosi, and one votes and the other does not, I consider the former to be a greater civic asset than the latter. It need not logically follow that every voter is superior to every nonvoter as that is not the case in my assessment.

Let's say, somewhat arbitrarily, that I assign a scale of 1-100 of civic moral standing. I would not reserve the top 50% for voters and bottom 50% for nonvoters. Rather, I would assign a value (say "-15") to those that choose not to vote, another value (say "-30") to those who reflexively follow a spoon-fed viewpoint, and another value (on a scale from +1 to +40) for being aware of what is going on in this country. It would be a contributing factor to their position on the scale, but not a determinative one in comparison to those that did vote.

Unfortunately, if one has the opportunity to vote and chooses not to, I cannot process that as neutral under any circumstances that come to mind.

/I think you're hair-splitting/

It's definitely murky ground and there is going to be overlap. But there is a difference, in my mind, between complaining about something that congress is doing (say the bankrupcy law) and complaining about the unfairness of the law itself. I would more likely take their critique of the law more seriously than I would take it as an argument that it is a bad thing that Republicans are in charge because they pass such stupid laws. For the most part, though, it doesn't really seem to matter very much these days because it's not about the laws that Republicans are passing but who they are (evil, beholden to corporate America, bigots, hopelessly corrupt, etc.) and not what the Democrats have obstructed or will now try to pass but who they are (anti-American, socialist, frothing at the mouth, etc) as well. It's a sad commentary on the political discourse of the times, but makes the distinction easier to maintain in my mind.

Or possibly the distinction is a false one I set up in my mind to cope with cognitive dissonance. If that is the case, I cannot see it right now. On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to, now would I :).

/What about permanent residents who can't vote? Perhaps that's different, you might say, because they never had the choice./

The choice is important. Some people weren't able to make it out to the polls for some reasons. Some felons can't vote. We all know that there are some that can't fill their ballots correctly even if they do show up. When I say "voters" and "non-voters" I mean "those that chose to vote or would have if they could have" and "those that chose not to vote." You're right it's not the act of voting that is crucial. It's the decision to be a part of the process of our electoral democracy or not. If you choose not you may have some very interesting things to say, but you're not part of the process and I believe lesser for that. Some are ineligible or otherwise unable to. I can't hold that against them because the choice was not theirs to make.

I think it ought to go without saying, but these kinds of discussions can be pretty contentious so I will say it anyway: I hold your opinion in very high regard whether you voted or not. You're one of only a couple people that when I see a comment with your name, my first response is to question whatever it is I just said. I may not demonstrate much respect for the decision that you made, but in my worldview there ought to be decisions that I make that you do not respect as that is an inevitable component of moral judgment. The conflict between moral judgment and moral relativism is, of course, another area in which we differ philosophically. I wonder if part of the current disagreement may be related to the larger disagreement.

In any case, I will give you last word because I have a novel to write. I do appreciate you stopping by.