"I'll vote when there's someone worth voting for."
In reality, however, that the inverse receives more of a call to action/vote. In the wake of the Alabama special election it seems that having a candidate worth voting for is way less of a motivator than the obsession, we as humans feel, for defeating a candidate that offends all of our sensibilities and is (even for a nonbeliever) a manifestation of the devil incarnate.
Discuss
In Moore's case I would have voted. Just because he's a disgusting lecher and out of touch human being, who relies on a book written 2000 years ago as fact. I'm to the point where I feel all politicians are corrupt. They do not have my best interest in mind. Our country is run by corporations. Every politician should where a NASCAR suit with all their corporate sponsors.
You won't know when there is someone worth voting for unless you pay attention and seek out available information on candidates, but that takes time and effort. Americans often expect it handed to us simply. We can't hold ourselves above the gritty process and still have any right to pass judgment when the country goes to shit.
Good effing answer!
Having candidates that are really great is a tall order. It seems the most qualified people would never want to subject themselves to the dirty, mud-slinging political process. So we are left with lesser choices. But to not vote is a capitulation to the idea of letting the worst people run everything. Cynical anti-democratic interests, like the obscenely wealthy Koch brothers and corporate mega-lobbyists would like nothing better than for conscientious citizens to disengage. When we fail to pay attention to the issues, to educate ourselves on them, and we don't even vote, the vested interests win, and that usually spells bad news for the average citizen.
"I'll vote when there's someone worth voting for." And thank them for tRump. Almost 50% didn't vote in the presidential election. And in any election, there are multiple positions up for election. In the US we take the right to vote for granted. I don't think it should be an option.
Typically campaigns degenerate into mud slinging fairly quickly. If they are only mud slinging, the real positions don't get put out there. Or they don't get put out there enough for people to understand. So people wind-up voting against who they think is the bad guy. Everyone should get the same amount of $ and be given 3 or 4 weeks to campaign.
I want to see votes moved to Saturday's, automatic voter registration, and standardized early voting options so we wouldn't have such discrepancies in voting opportunity from rich to poor voter precincts.
The only time I don't vote is when I am ambivalent toward either candidate. I think this happened on the local level years ago....but when I wasn't on the road being a trouble maker, I was always registered to vote. And even on the road, I voted for all the major elections. Choosing not to vote is also a vote.
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We are less inclined to vote for something than to vote against something. People are more emotionally charged by the negative than by the positive, which is a rather sad commentary on society or human nature.
As an eternal optimist, I would like to say that we are better at standing up for others than for ourselves.
We need a new quarterback, but our defense is the shit!... It's a rebuilding year.