I always vote for "apathy"

“If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.”

--Emma Goldman

I don't vote. I also avoid conversations about voting, because when I mention I don't vote, otherwise reasonable people respond by shrieking like a freebasing hyena.

Man travels in packs; even supposed !INDIVIDUALISTS! feel better when they can be part of the mob. Voting helps sate this craving, and trying to argue the herd out of herding is like giving the finger to gravity. Doesn't accomplish much.

Still, the sanctimony of proud voters during Presidential races is so feverish I can't help myself.

The least impressive argument I hear from voters: People died to give you the right to vote.

So what? People also died defending the Third Reich. Their dying for a cause doesn't alter the merits of the cause one bit. Dying isn't a big deal. People die running themselves over with their own riding lawnmowers. Their death doesn't elevate my view of them.

Look at how progressives react when a Christian tells them Jesus died for us. The progressives laugh, gag, or squawk (not a bad name for a game show). What they don't do is start going to church. Progressives--or just non-Christians in general--don't feel any obligation to Christ based on his dying for a cause.

I remember once speaking to someone--a proud progressive, AND SHE VOTES!--who couldn't leave well enough alone. She kept serving big, clichéd bowls of "It's your civic duty to vote" chowder.

Finally I said something like, "I don't believe in the political system, so by not participating, I am being the change I want to see in the world."

If anyone should appreciate my mentality, it should be progressives. Or so their slogans--Think globally, act locally--would lead us to believe. I don’t believe in voting, so by not voting, I am being the change I want to see in the world. I am thinking globally and acting locally. I am following Ghandi's advice.

George Carlin said it best:

I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.

Romney isn't Reagan; He's Dewey

Romney, like all Republican hacks, says the word "Reagan" almost as often as he says "the." Mitt uses "Reagan" likes it's a comma. In reality, Mr. Romney has much more in common with a certain Thomas E. Dewey of DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN fame.

Both had been presidential bridesmaids before. Dewey made an unsuccessful run for President in '44 (and in '40). Romney made an unsuccessful run in '08.

Both men ran on the heels of a Republican surge in Congress. Both surges were described by those doing the surging as "a mandate." In Dewey's day, the '46 elections were said to be a mandate on the New Deal. In Romney's time, the '10 elections were supposedly a mandate on programs like Obamacare (how uncomfortable for Mr. Romneycare).

Both faced a beleaguered incumbent. At one point in '48, Truman sported an approval rating of 36%.

Both were liberal (by Republican standards) governors of famously liberal states (Dewey New York, Mitt Massachusetts); making them suspicious to Republicans elsewhere in the country. Perhaps this is part of the reason their opponents focused their campaigns on the desperate need to "nominate a real conservative;" making the races a bit of an "anyone but Romney/Dewey affair." In 1948 Dewey's opponents even convened to construct a delegate strategy to stem "the Dewey blitz." They failed.

Both were accused of insufficiently differentiating themselves from the incumbent; basically offering a series of overly cautious "me-tooisms." This approach made it easier for Truman to seem like a tough talker, and will likely afford Obama the same opportunity. Don't be surprised if before long we're hearing, "Give 'em Hell, Barry!"

The big difference is that Dewey was very much expected to win. No one expects Mitt to steamroll Barack. So Romney can reference Reagan all he wants. The rest of us know how this movie ends. The headline this November will be OBAMA DEFEATS ROMNEY.

Every year is an election year

How many times have you been watching the news and heard a reporter/pundit say something like, "But don't expect anything to be done about it any time soon. After all, it's an election year."

Elections are purported to be this sacred ritual we're supposed to honor and participate in. Yet the skeptical tone of the "it's an election year" line tells you all you need to know about elections; sorry voters, can't expect anything practical this year. Why not? Because this year we're holding those holy elections you're conditioned to revere!

Leaving aside what this says about the fatal flaws of elected government, today's 24/7 news cycle and the constant need for content means that for all practical purposes, now every year is an election year, so the likelihood of government honesty is even lower. There are no "off years" where officials might temporarily abstain from the more conspicuous pandering of the campaign trail, which at least theoretically would allow adult thinking to sneak into the process.

Simply put: the political junkiedom/news entertainment trend that has spawned this 24-hour news monstrosity is making the political process even more cynical and duplicitous. Far from being "watchdogs," the "political junkies" and news celebs have actually made it harder for the Washington shills to take a day off from shilling.

I suppose I should lament this development, but as it is the news celebrities and their glassy-eyed patsy fans who are often the most zealous about declaring it our "duty" to vote, it is more fun to sit back and watch them transparently betrayed by the process they celebrate.