The Youth Vote?

[anogete]

I was watching the news tonight and caught the end of a segment on this story by John Stossel of ABC News. Basically, he is asserting that it may just be your civic duty to not vote if you are uninformed on the issues. Specifically, he's talking about young voters. I'm 27; I do not know if I am considered a young voter or not, but I am appalled when I attempt to discuss politics with anyone my age. They know very little and are unable to answer even the simplest questions about our government.

So, my question is: Should you sit out and not vote if you are uninformed about the candidates or issues? I am not asking whether the government should prevent you from voting, because I would not be in favor of that in any way, shape, or form. My questions is whether the voter should have the presence of mind to say, "Hey, I don't really understand what these people are talking about. Maybe I shouldn't be making such an important decision without all the facts." Thoughts? Hate mail? Flames?

And, you know, this isn't just about young voters. Jason's mother is turning 60 in a week, and she couldn't give me one legitimate reason she's voting for the candidate she supports, other than she thinks he's a nice fellow and is very genuine. Riiiiiight...

Comments

[shalanar.livejournal.com]

Wow. Palin as Obama's VP? That would be...a sign of the apocalypse or something.

I have almost always found that third party voters are the most educated on the issues. It's easy to pick candidate a or b without necessarily being informed. It's a lot harder to pick candidate c, when you know they likely won't win. Unless you also know they really are the best choice. And that means being informed.

I think it would be great if third party voters were more vocal in their complaints, if only so one day someone like Ron Paul could really have a shot. I was constantly amazed this election cycle how many people didn't know anything about him, and yet they were fairly educated on the issues. Unfortunately until third party voters get vocal enough to really make waves on the news, that's likely to continue.

[anogete.livejournal.com]

The problem, as I see it, isn't really the third-party voters. All of the ones I know in person and on the internet are very vocal and willing to discuss the issues. The problem is really the media. Most media outlets don't treat the third-party candidates as possible contenders. They spend all of their time discussing the two major party candidates and tack a short interview with someone like Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin onto the end of a show at airs at 2:00 most people are at work. It's also very difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballot in several states. Despite missing the deadline to declare themselves and their V.P. choices for the ballot in Texas, both major party candidates were allowed on the ballot anyway. The rules were simply a formality to be ignored by both of them. However, third-party candidates often have to collect signatures and waste important campaign dollars on lawsuits in order to be allow on the ballot. It's actually quite shameful and the discrimination is built into our current system. It's why I'd rather chuck it all in and move to an island with a new government based in facts and fairness instead of corrupt political games and career politicians who feed off the people of this country.

Uck, rant much. See, you got me started. :-)