For those who voted for George Bush

[Dhanishta]

:bondage:
Those who voted for George Bush should read these:

http://Kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=394
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/Kidd74.htm
http://www.tnimc.org/newswire/display/3379/index.php

It was even obvious from way back. Well there goes the planet....

What do you have to say for yourselves?

[Keeblergiant]

I'd say you're gullible and that you're just mad that the best man one.

[Strife]

the best man.

*cough* I'm sure you'd wish yourself that there was someone else besides this guy. He certainly isn't the best, just one that we're stuck with.

[Keeblergiant]

Hell, as long as they had same policy on the war in Iraq as Bush then I'd support them. However, Kerry just wasn't a good alternative (leaving us with Bush, as we all know no one that isn't supported by the Dem. or Rep. parties is going to win an election anytime soon).

[Strife]

Another reason why I believe that this system should change.

[Keeblergiant]

I think we should get rid of the electoral college, as it would just mess up the democratic process if a third party did gain any significant support, as it is probable that none of the parties would ever reach the 270 electoral votes to become president.

[RavenWhitefang]

if it should happen that a 3rd party does become popular, the 270 would be changed. You wouldnt see the number of votes that each state has now, they would be spread more evenly and/or raised to fit the needs of a 3 party race.

Considering all the little vote problems popping up recently, and ststes doing recounts on their own without pressure from court systems, we may or may not find that Bush isnt the pres.

HERE (http://www.armageddononline.org/politics.php) are a few of the news stories about it.

[dutchie]

Why don't you people just count the # of votes, and let THAT decide?!? IMO the 270 is just plain ridiculous. This way someone could win without an absolute majority (didn't it already happen once?!?).

[Dhanishta]

I'd say you're gullible and that you're just mad that the best man one.

Gullible ??? Towards what? Its your country thats getting wrecked, not mine.
I only wanted to point out some truths. In the end everyone is going to suffer because of this man, but your own country will cop the worst of it. Look at what negative energies he has brought on and at how much americans are disrespected and hated these days. Its the leader's responsibility to make a country great not small in the eyes of many. Have some discrimination in choosing someone useful to humanity not someone who thinks he's God's personal agent in the end times. Get with the picture. The guy's a religious fruit cake!!! :52:

[Zach]

Why don't you people just count the # of votes, and let THAT decide?!? IMO the 270 is just plain ridiculous. This way someone could win without an absolute majority (didn't it already happen once?!?).



Dutchie, exactly what i believe. The electoral college is the dumbest thing in the world. All it proves is that you are popular in big states. The small guy doesnt count. Popular vote should be the only thing that we count. Wasnt there an election where the president who lost the popular vote won because of the electoral. The popular vote really shows what the people think.

[RavenWhitefang]

Just remember, this is what you voted for. (http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/november2004/091104bushflips.jpg)

[Thor]

I guess the masses have spoken...?

[Moishe3rd]

Gullible ??? Towards what? Its your country thats getting wrecked, not mine.
I only wanted to point out some truths. In the end everyone is going to suffer because of this man, but your own country will cop the worst of it. Look at what negative energies he has brought on and at how much americans are disrespected and hated these days. Its the leader's responsibility to make a country great not small in the eyes of many. Have some discrimination in choosing someone useful to humanity not someone who thinks he's God's personal agent in the end times. Get with the picture. The guy's a religious fruit cake!!! :52:
In the words of the immortal Willy Wonka:
"Wrong Sir, Wrong!
You Get Nothing!
You Lose!
Good Day, Sir!"
:2fu:

It is a leaders responsibility to lead. Fact is, you don' like where Mr. Bush is leadin'. S'okay.
Americans (here in Jesusland) were disrespected and hated by them folks that followed Mussolini...
And Stalin....
And Petain...
And Tojo...
Oh, and Hitler too...
That just about took care of most of the world....
Hated and disrespected. This can be a badge of honor if what you are hated for is doing good.
I guess wees hated nowadays by them Muslim folk...
Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm....
They do seem to do a powerful lot of hatin'
Think I'd rather be on the side o' Jesusland meself

Good Day Sir!

[RavenWhitefang]

propaganda monger

lol hey if he puts it out there, someone is going to see it. there is also a video clip of him flipping the bird.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>Americans (here in Jesusland) were disrespected
>and hated by them folks that followed....

true. but weren't they vanquished? freed from the leaders that misled their nations? didn't we earn people's respect and admiration? didn't everyone want to come over here after all we did for them? now what did we do to change all that? Even the Japanese who hated Americans [at one time] were sending troops to assist us.
You didn't know?

after 911, the world mourned with us. now they hate us. i believe you're taking the hate "out of context" by saying other nations have always hated Americans. Au contraire, they hate us for what we're doing in Iraq.

Is the eradication of a civilian population a victory against terrorism? or its birth?
Were the Geneva Accords, something the U.S. signed? Or only the Germans?

[Moishe3rd]

>Americans (here in Jesusland) were disrespected
>and hated by them folks that followed....

true. but weren't they vanquished? freed from the leaders that misled their nations? didn't we earn people's respect and admiration? didn't everyone want to come over here after all we did for them? now what did we do to change all that? Even the Japanese who hated Americans [at one time] were sending troops to assist us.
You didn't know?

after 911, the world mourned with us. now they hate us. i believe you're taking the hate "out of context" by saying other nations have always hated Americans. Au contraire, they hate us for what we're doing in Iraq.

Is the eradication of a civilian population a victory against terrorism? or its birth?
Were the Geneva Accords, something the U.S. signed? Or only the Germans?

Au Contraire, Monsieur,
I do not believe Ze Nations hated us always.
I do believe they hate for what we are doing in Ze Iraq.
Yes.
Emphatically.
C'est Vrai!

This changes not a thing as to my implications. What we are doing in Iraq is moral and a good thing for Iraq and world peace.

What They were doing in Iraq was (and are doing, depending upon ze nations, such as the Iran and the Syria) immoral. And criminal. And against International Law. And despicable. And inhuman. And inhumane. And greedy. And disgusting. And totally self-serving. And self defeating. And insane. And.....
Bad. Just like the leaders that I mentioned who led their willing masses into the valleys of death and destruction.

I do not like them.

I do like George Bush.
I even voted for the guy.
:2thumbs:

[MetalMilitia]

While all politicians lie ( to some extent), or try to control publics views of themselves, it falls back to the 'mainstream' media (ABC, CBS, FOX,CNN) to accuratly report the news we get as citizens. Yet, from what I can tell, none of these networks follow up (immediatly) skepticize, or do any TRUE investigative reporting themselves.

They are simply handed "the news" or announcements from the public officials, senators, represenatives, and the presidents 'staff'.... and read it to us. It's only in hindsight that we can see why not to beleive all the shit they tell us. As long as Bush drastically changes US policy and meddle in the ME affairs, it SHOULD be the responsibility of our press to interpret and accuratly present both sides of the story to us. Now for some of you, "hannity and colmes" or "crossfire" is both sides getting their "political" agenda across... well ya know what, eat me. They are just 2-4 grown men bitching about party policy. That isnt fairness in reporting, nor is it "fair and balanced" coverage of world news.

Now I know some of you think "fair and balanced" can't get any clearer, but thats bullshit. While the Bush administration has come under some heavy criticism lately for the way it used prewar intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, another institution is also beginning to feel some heat about the way it conducted itself before and during the war in Iraq: the media. While some experts say the US media was far too sycophantic in their coverage of the Bush administration's positions on Iraq, and issues like WMD, others say foreign media sometimes went too far in the other direction, and created an us versus them relationship in their coverage.

Well thats all fine and dandy, but no one even acknowledges this gap. When they say "breaking news" it means one thing to the media - it's like it's the first time they could have ever even imagined the scenario, or even reported on it.WHAT!? Saddam DIDNT have those WMD's we reported on for 6 months? Yer shitting me? WHAT!? No "noooookular" weapons program? No way? WHAT!? Iraq couldn't even be tied to al quaida? No shit? Well that's news to us!

Where is the actual 'journalism' or 'opinion' going on? They are like megaphones blasting the persons message across the airwaves, but they don't REALLY stop to investigate when it matters the most.

Enough on that : Why can't I back Bush?

He invaded Iraq, and as a result more than 100,000 have been killed since we got there. Are all of the deaths on our hands, no. But 100,000 in just over a year is a staggering number.

he sent American and coalition military men and women into harms way without adequate war plans, without adequate armor and equipment, without adequate plans for the occupation, and without an exit strategy. What is our way out? After disproving 3 of the major logics behind the war, wtf are americans still doing "fighting the enemy" (in which nearly 1200 have died) that wasn't even responsible for attacking us in the first place?

His support of the patriot act is unamerican to me. This is personal opinion, attack all you want. Detaining thousands of people in the US without charges or access to legal counsel under the Patriot Act, in which NONE, I REPEAT, NONE HAVE been convicted of any crimes is a blow to the "american way of life."

"I'm a uniter, not a divider"

My ass. Is that why 75% of the world would have voted against you? hereyafuckin go : http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/campaignslogans.htm#divider A list of shit he's done to DIVIDE america.

...he cant go anywhere in the entire world without huge crowds coming to protest his visit in the hundreds of thousands. Its not about his politics or your ideas. Its not about his right wing bent agenda (christian compassionate conservatives), or his refusal to analyze and examine the complexities (beyond the "ranch in Texas) of the world. HE IS BLIIND to naked truth or something...

Its what he does to tear down the very fabric of American leadership, and infringe in every way upon the American way of life. It's his whole presidency, iits not much to be proud of...

...but then again, thats something he's good at (for anyone thats read about the businesses he's ran before becoming president)

-MM-

[dutchie]

Currently I am reading a book about the "secrets" behind GWB. Seems like all of his campaign funding comes from ultra conservative groups. One of the sources that really drew my attention was the Korean sect leader Sunyang Moon. Daddy Bush was also heavily funded by him. This Moon seems to have a finger in almost anything. The Washington Times, Jerry Falwell, they all get paid by this man.
GWB is a great admirer of D'Souza, an author of ultra rightwing literature, in which he proposes to abolish all social security programs and to give employers the right to discriminate anyone for race or creed. This D'Souza gets paid by Moon also.

It's rather strange that both Daddy Bush and GW both have nothing bad to say about this Moon character, a sect leader who even has big tourist businesses in North Korea, who gave Kim Ying Il $3,000,000 as a birthday present, and has a profound dislike of Americans, which he never even tried to hide.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>Just like the leaders that I mentioned who led their willing masses into
>the valleys of death and destruction.

i see what you're saying.
history is repeating. our masses (59+million) are willing.
those unwilling (~56+million) have to live with it.
how does the U.S. rank in education? worldwide?


>I do not like them.

i don't like em either, but well. I voted, fortunately, it wasn't "disenfranchised".
My city/county voted for Kerry, in a sea of red. Hello Fascism!
Its funny how so many counties, had more votes than those registered to vote. Then there are the votes that are uncounted, "spoiled", that don't get counted.
Who counts our votes, again? :grin
yeah, our democracy, is the best! [money can buy]


>What we are doing in Iraq is moral and a good thing for Iraq and world peace.

and that is where i disagree with you. but you know that already.
2 wrongs don't make a right.
these insurgents are more bothersome than the French resistance ever were.

[Strife]

Draft fans flames of U.S. militarism

I don't think a bigger Army is a good idea (Oct. 18 story). We have choices other than drafting young men and women.

We already have a draft -- an economic (or poverty) draft. Men and women enlist out of lack of opportunity in civilian life. That could be corrected by changing our priorities. More than $500 billion in discretionary spending goes to the military. A conspicuous example of waste is the $80 billion spent on a national missile defense system that won't provide significant protection for many years, if ever. Why not devote $80 billion to education, e.g., offering hands-on job training, reversing the soaring costs of college, decreasing class size, funding pre-kindergarten and after-school programs better, etc.?

Conscription encourages the militarists in our midst. Napoleon Bonaparte used it to expand the French empire, boasting that he could afford to lose 25,000 men a month. I believe conscription prolonged the Vietnam War. In September 2001, the American empire had 725 foreign bases in 38 countries and 254,788 military personnel in 153 countries. With civilians and dependents included, the number doubles to 531,227 (Chalmers Johnson, "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic").

We have choices. We can oppose and reduce our empire. Sentient men and women likely to be drafted can refuse to obey state orders to kill, becoming conscientious objectors. We can try to identify and address the causes of terrorism and war. Causes were off the table during the election campaign.

I'm reminded of the gentle prodding of John Woolman, a Quaker tailor, in 1774: "May we look upon our treasures, the furniture of our houses, and our garments, and try whether the seeds of war have nourishment in these our possessions."

Thomas C. Sturtevant

Winthrop

Bush deficit drives

U.S. to bankruptcy

The re-election of President Bush is a catastrophe for this country. The next four years are a continuation of the Bush practice of voodoo economics -- meaning reckless spending; disastrous deficits, this year being $521 billion, the largest deficit in U.S. history; and an exploding debt that is speeding our country to financial ruin.

Thanks to Bush's two tax cuts for the super-rich, the White House and Congress' escalation of domestic spending, two wars that never can be won and an economic recession, what was a $200 billion surplus three years ago under President Clinton has become a river of red ink. With a national debt spiraling upward of $7.3 trillion coupled with a huge trade deficit, we are standing on the edge of a financial abyss that will eventually undermine the financial security of the present generation as well as future generations.

"Deficits don't matter," said Vice President Dick Cheney and other members of the Bush administration, but they are totally wrong. Deficits have a huge impact on the economy. Our skyrocketing debt, which is soaking up every dollar the government takes in, is destroying the economy, which eventually will leave this country bankrupt.

Dee C. Brown Jr.

Readfield

---> http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/letters/1137480.shtml

[Dhanishta]

While all politicians lie ( to some extent), or try to control publics views of themselves, it falls back to the 'mainstream' media (ABC, CBS, FOX,CNN) to accuratly report the news we get as citizens. Yet, from what I can tell, none of these networks follow up (immediatly) skepticize, or do any TRUE investigative reporting themselves.

They are simply handed "the news" or announcements from the public officials, senators, represenatives, and the presidents 'staff'.... and read it to us. It's only in hindsight that we can see why not to beleive all the shit they tell us. As long as Bush drastically changes US policy and meddle in the ME affairs, it SHOULD be the responsibility of our press to interpret and accuratly present both sides of the story to us. Now for some of you, "hannity and colmes" or "crossfire" is both sides getting their "political" agenda across... well ya know what, eat me. They are just 2-4 grown men bitching about party policy. That isnt fairness in reporting, nor is it "fair and balanced" coverage of world news.

Now I know some of you think "fair and balanced" can't get any clearer, but thats bullshit. While the Bush administration has come under some heavy criticism lately for the way it used prewar intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, another institution is also beginning to feel some heat about the way it conducted itself before and during the war in Iraq: the media. While some experts say the US media was far too sycophantic in their coverage of the Bush administration's positions on Iraq, and issues like WMD, others say foreign media sometimes went too far in the other direction, and created an us versus them relationship in their coverage.

Well thats all fine and dandy, but no one even acknowledges this gap. When they say "breaking news" it means one thing to the media - it's like it's the first time they could have ever even imagined the scenario, or even reported on it.WHAT!? Saddam DIDNT have those WMD's we reported on for 6 months? Yer shitting me? WHAT!? No "noooookular" weapons program? No way? WHAT!? Iraq couldn't even be tied to al quaida? No shit? Well that's news to us!

Where is the actual 'journalism' or 'opinion' going on? They are like megaphones blasting the persons message across the airwaves, but they don't REALLY stop to investigate when it matters the most.

Enough on that : Why can't I back Bush?

He invaded Iraq, and as a result more than 100,000 have been killed since we got there. Are all of the deaths on our hands, no. But 100,000 in just over a year is a staggering number.

he sent American and coalition military men and women into harms way without adequate war plans, without adequate armor and equipment, without adequate plans for the occupation, and without an exit strategy. What is our way out? After disproving 3 of the major logics behind the war, wtf are americans still doing "fighting the enemy" (in which nearly 1200 have died) that wasn't even responsible for attacking us in the first place?

His support of the patriot act is unamerican to me. This is personal opinion, attack all you want. Detaining thousands of people in the US without charges or access to legal counsel under the Patriot Act, in which NONE, I REPEAT, NONE HAVE been convicted of any crimes is a blow to the "american way of life."

"I'm a uniter, not a divider"

My ass. Is that why 75% of the world would have voted against you? hereyafuckin go : http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/campaignslogans.htm#divider A list of shit he's done to DIVIDE america.

...he cant go anywhere in the entire world without huge crowds coming to protest his visit in the hundreds of thousands. Its not about his politics or your ideas. Its not about his right wing bent agenda (christian compassionate conservatives), or his refusal to analyze and examine the complexities (beyond the "ranch in Texas) of the world. HE IS BLIIND to naked truth or something...

Its what he does to tear down the very fabric of American leadership, and infringe in every way upon the American way of life. It's his whole presidency, iits not much to be proud of...

...but then again, thats something he's good at (for anyone thats read about the businesses he's ran before becoming president)

-MM-

Good on yerr MM. Tell it how it is..... The wake up call is coming for the foolish and when it does its gonna be a shock. :2thumbs:

[substand]

Why don't you people just count the # of votes, and let THAT decide?!? IMO the 270 is just plain ridiculous. This way someone could win without an absolute majority (didn't it already happen once?!?).


Dutchie, exactly what i believe. The electoral college is the dumbest thing in the world. All it proves is that you are popular in big states. The small guy doesnt count. Popular vote should be the only thing that we count. Wasnt there an election where the president who lost the popular vote won because of the electoral. The popular vote really shows what the people think.

No zach, (and to help explain it to dutchie), the "electoral college" exists for the express purpose of ensuring that "big states" don't get the final say in any particular election.

To be sure, the electoral votes each state gets is in proportion to their total population. However, the idea is to make sure people from all parts of the US get a say in the election process. Thus, even Iowa will always get a few votes counted for someone. Else, it would be the big cities deciding everything. The electoral college is the last resort for rights of the minority.

Most of the time, the majority of people vote for whoever the president will be (as is the case this year). Sometimes, however, as we saw in 2000, the majority voted for the loser- but the winner was a more accurate reflection of the country as a whole (taking geography/population into account).

If we took only popular vote into consideration, we may as well not count the votes of anyone in any state besides the most populous ones. It was a neccesary condition to form these United States that those with less population and different concerns would be taken into consideration. Thus, we have 2 senators from each state, regardless of population. We have the House of Representatives to give big states extra power (and power to all localities), and we have the presidency as the ultimate compromise- states with bigger populations get more votes, but it is tempered to a maximum amount of vote, that way states with tiny populations can still have a say in the election, no matter how small their population, they always have at least 1 of the 270 votes needed to elect a president.

[DontBeAfraid]

Subs this is wrong..... The electoral college lets the 11 biggest states decide who the president will be.... It lets 28% of the population decide who the president will be... It DOES NOT encourage candidates to visit anywhere but swing states(as it effectively changes a persons vote if said person doesnt vote with the majority)...

The electoral college was set up to give slave states more votes back in the day, it was more corrupt then than it is now that everyone can vote but its still a bad system....

How many candidates visited Utah on their campaign subs?

[substand]

Subs this is wrong..... The electoral college lets the 11 biggest states decide who the president will be.... It lets 28% of the population decide who the president will be... It DOES NOT encourage candidates to visit anywhere but swing states(as it effectively changes a persons vote if said person doesnt vote with the majority)...

The electoral college was set up to give slave states more votes back in the day, it was more corrupt then than it is now that everyone can vote but its still a bad system....

How many candidates visited Utah on their campaign subs?


Yet it doesn't because the top 11 states conflict in thier political values. It might let only 28% of the population decide who the president will be, but the same would be true for popular elections, as only around 55 percent of the population votes, thus 28% in favor of one candidate would decide anyway.

I'm sure that both candidates visited Utah in their campaign. Well, I'm not SURE, but I would think at least Bush did. Even Kerry visited Texas. He knew TX would vote for Bush, but he visited anyway, if for no other reason than to raise money.

But, you are right- they don't pay much attention to anyone but swing states. And they wouldn't even if it were based on nothing but popular vote. There is good reason for this- don't waste your time convincing your choir to sing for you in places you know they will sing for you anyway- spend time convincing the choir to sing for you in places you know there are many who will sing for your competitor.

For the most part, you would like to convince the "middle" to vote for you. However, in an election like we just had, it is much more important to convince those who already agree with you to get out and vote. Its not that there are that many more conservatives in this election than there were in the last one. Its that that many more got off their asses and voted.

It is stupid for Bush to visit Illinois multiple times when he knows it will vote 90-10 for Kerry. It is equally stupid for Kerry to waste time there, since he knows he will win the state. They both may visit it, make an appearance, and get the loyal partisan troops to give money to them for their campaign in the rest of the country, but they, nor the media will pay much attn to it, considering they know the results. And this would not change with a "popular based vote."

[DontBeAfraid]

ok subs, 28 % of the voters can decide the president... This is not good.... Dick cheney came to utah....

With a popular vote they would be encouraged to visit everywhere because everyones vote would count, not just the people who vote with the majority.... your last three paragraphs enumerate exactly whats wrong with the electoral college..... However, you left out the fact that if you dont vote with the majority of your state your vote doesnt just not count, it counts AGAINST you.

When my vote counts againts me there is a problem.

[substand]

ok subs, 28 % of the voters can decide the president... This is not good....

but its reality, no matter which way you look at it. The solution is what? Mandatory voting? Where's the freedom in that?


With a popular vote they would be encouraged to visit everywhere because everyones vote would count, not just the people who vote with the majority.... your last three paragraphs enumerate exactly whats wrong with the electoral college..... However, you left out the fact that if you dont vote with the majority of your state your vote doesnt just not count, it counts AGAINST you.

I see how my last 3 paragraphs can be construed that way, but the alternative is not visiting everyone, but visiting only those most populous states, never less populous ones. Candidates cannot be everywhere at once, nor everywhere even once during the election. They would still choose to visit only certain places, and those places would be the places where people are most likely to vote for them.

If you don't vote with the majority of your state, you can choose to think of it as a throwaway vote. I dont. I have yet to vote for a major party candidate, much less the winner of my state, and I don't feel my vote has been thrown away.

Your vote is worth the same as everyone elses vote- it helps decide where your candidate will place in your state. Using your logic, your vote would count less in a popular election- as everyone's vote for the losing candidate is worthless. At least with the electoral college, it is worth your state's electoral vote if you vote for the candidate that wins that state... of course, i guess its possible to say that all those states that vote for the loser don't matter... but if we keep taking it to the end, the only person whose vote matters is the one who cast THE deciding vote- which in either case, is impossible to determine.

I still stand by the electoral college being the ultimate compromise. It ensures that metropolitan places cannot determine who represents the whole country. It takes everyone's vote.

[RavenWhitefang]

http://img125.exs.cx/img125/6642/bush_fing.gif
Go Jebusland! :2thumbs:

/me skips happily away

[DontBeAfraid]

Subs I changed it to VOTERS from population.... let me put it another way.. 72% of VOTERS can all vote for the same guy and that guy can LOSE because of the electoral college.... why you ask? Because if you dont vote with the majority of your state your vote IS CHANGED.


I see how my last 3 paragraphs can be construed that way, but the alternative is not visiting everyone, but visiting only those most populous states, never less populous ones.

They DONT HAVE TO VISIT EVERYONE. With the winner take all system my vote counts against me when it gets CHANGED at the state level. With a popular vote it wouldnt get changed, only counted as a vote for the loser. It would also encourage them to appeal to as many people as possible and visit as many people as possible because the large states would have split votes instead of the winner taking all.... As it is they are MORE encouraged to visit only the large states because if they lose that state it counts against them bigtime, where it wouldnt with a popular vote... The electoral college is only a compromise of our integrety.... It DOES not take everyones vote as it CHANGES your vote if you dont vote for the winner of your state.....

You havent explained how it can possibly encourage candidates to visit everywhere yet, you just keep saying it does.... I HAVE explained how it discourages it.

edit: my numbers assume an average percent vote from each state.... If this were to flux than it can go anywhere from 99% to 1% of voters..... Yet another flaw with the electoral college... With a popular vote the math cant get funny.

[dutchie]

To tell you the truth, I'm all for mandatory voting. It might be against your ideas of freedom, but I see voting not as a right but as a duty. It's your democratic DUTY to vote. The very fact that you have the FREEDOM to vote anyway should be RESPECTED. This respect should force you to vote. If it doesn't, you hold your voting right in contempt. Too many people do that, IMO. I have ALWAYS used my voting right. It is a very valuable part of the democracy I live in. I would welcome mandatory voting.