« Why Is Six Degrees Centigrade Unlikely? | Main | Global Warming Is A GLOBAL Problem »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Tom Durkins

While I can understand all of the reasons that you site for not voting, isn't there some validity in voting for the candidate most likely to slow the rate of decline? Just seems like for the average citizen voting for Obama vs Romney is in one's best interest. Ultimately it will all end the same way, but in the meantime why not keep yourself afloat as long as possible?

~Whipping Boy


A seriously lucid summation Dave. In the sea of media befuddlement and ennui, your words are like a laser powered spotlight right between the eyes.

I'll have one of dem shirts when they're ready. On the back, consider printing a homage to George Carlin - a greasy hotdog entering a chocolate donut. :-)

Dave Cohen

@Whipping Boy

I would buy your argument, if I thought that Obama could "slow the rate of decline" as you put it. In fact, an earnest young man gave me that very argument when he rang my doorbell last weekend.

But as I said in this post, corrupt, dysfunctional political paralysis will begin anew the day after this election ends. And the decline in income for working Americans has continued unabated under Obama, whose policies also served to protect big financial interests. I don't call that slowing the rate of decline. That is the decline.

If Obama wins, it will be as if the election had never occurred. That's one reason I called it as the biggest non-event in human history.

However, I do concede that Obama will try to do more to maintain the "safety net" for the 46 million people in this country who can not afford to buy food. God only knows what will happen to these poor souls if the Republicans control both the White House and the Congress. But that outcome is not likely to occur.

Jesus wept.


-- Dave


My father, who desperately wants to think the country and the environment are salvageable, was horrified when I said I wasn't planning to vote, because I don't want to participate in a sham democracy and a corrupt system that is truly FUBAR.

But after Jill Stein got arrested for the second time I decided to cast a vote for her, just out of respect for a fellow inmate.

But don't tell my dad.


Surely it's too late now to convince anyone, but the main problem I see with the conclusion drawn in the post (not voting) is that it's phenotypically indistinguishable from people not giving a damn. Whereas voting for a third party, even with the certainty of not having a chance, sends a signal, mainly to other disaffected people. And that could really make a difference.

I would be with Gail on this one.


Compound F

Dave, I could possibly vote for the candidate who could explain the E7#9 of which donald fagen is so fond, because that way I wouldn't need a job in order to hire a musician to answer that question. Of course, had I further questions, I'd need that job all over again for the be bop turn-around in Peg.

Let's face it: the big questions (e.g., limits to growth) are more or less answered. I need a few littler answers on our way out.

John D

Have to say I voted for Jill Stein. Felt the urge to go vote due to my hatred for my Congressman. Not the purest of motives, but once there figured I'd cast a 3rd party protest vote.

The comments to this entry are closed.