Doug Casey's Top Five Reasons Not to Vote

By Doug Casey, Casey Research

L: Doug, we've spoken about presidents. We have a presidential election coming up in the US – an election that could have significant consequences on our investments. But given the views you've already expressed on the Tea Party movement and anarchy, I'm sure you have different ideas. What do you make of the impending circus, and what should a rational man do?

Doug: Well, a rational man, which is to say, an ethical man, would almost certainly not vote in this election, or in any other – at least above a local level, where you personally know most of both your neighbors and the candidates.

L: Why? Might not an ethical person want to vote the bums out?

Doug: He might feel that way, but he'd better get his emotions under control. I've thought about this. So let me give you at least five reasons why no one should vote.

The first reason is that voting is an unethical act, in and of itself. That's because the state is pure, institutionalized coercion. If you believe that coercion is an improper way for people to relate to one another, then you shouldn't engage in a process that formalizes and guarantees the use of coercion.

L: It's probably worth defining coercion in this context. I know you agree with me that force is ethical in self-defense. A murderer I shoot might feel coerced into accepting a certain amount of hot lead that he did not consent to, but he intended the same, or worse, for me, so the scales are balanced. What you are talking about is forcing innocent, non-consenting others to do things against their wills, like paying taxes that go to pay for military adventures they believe are wrong, etc.

Doug: Right. The modern state not only routinely coerces people into doing all sorts of things they don't want to do – often very clearly against their own interests – but it necessarily does so, by its nature. People who want to know more about that should read our conversation on anarchy. This distinction is very important in a society with a government that is no longer limited by a constitution that restrains it from violating individual rights. And when you vote, you participate in, and endorse, this unethical system.

L: It's probably also worth clarifying that you're not talking about all voting here. When you are a member of a golfing club and vote on how to use the fees, you and everyone else have consented to the process, so it's not unethical. It's participating in the management of the coercive machinery of the state you object to, not voting in and of itself.

Doug: Exactly. As Mao correctly said, "The power of the State comes out of the barrel of a gun." It's not like voting for the leadership of a social club. Unlike a golfing club or something of that nature, the state won't let you opt out.

L: Even if you're not harming anyone and just want to be left alone.

Doug: Which relates to the second reason: privacy. It compromises your privacy to vote. It gets your name added to a list government busybodies can make use of, like court clerks putting together lists of conscripts for jury duty. Unfortunately, this is not as important a reason as it used to be, because of the great proliferation of lists people are on anyway. Still, while it's true there's less privacy in our world today, in general, the less any government knows about you, the better off you are. This is, of course, why I've successfully refused to complete a census form for the last 40 years.

L: [Chuckles] We've talked about the census. Good for you.

Doug: It's wise to be a nonperson, as far as the state is concerned, as far as possible.

L: Not to digress too much, but some people might react by saying that juries are important.

Doug: They are, but it would be a waste of my time to sign up for jury duty, because I would certainly be kicked off any jury. No attorney would ever let me stay on the jury once we got to voir dire, because I would not agree to being a robot that simply voted on the facts and the law as instructed by the judge – I'd want to vote on the morality of the law in question too. I'd be interested in justice, and very few laws today, except for the basic ones on things like murder and theft, have anything to do with justice. If the case related to drug laws, or tax laws, I would almost certainly automatically vote to acquit, regardless of the facts of the case.

L: I've thought about it too, because it is important, and I might be willing to serve on a jury. And of course I'd vote my conscience too. But I'd want to be asked, not ordered to do it. I'm not a slave.

Doug: My feelings exactly.

L: But we should probably get to your third reason for not voting.

Doug: That would be because it's a degrading experience. The reason I say that is because registering to vote, and voting itself, usually involves taking productive time out of your day to go stand around in lines in government offices. You have to fill out forms and deal with petty bureaucrats. I know I can find much more enjoyable and productive things to do with my time, and I'm sure anyone reading this can as well.

L: And the pettier the bureaucrat, the more unpleasant the interaction tends to be.

Doug: I have increasing evidence of that every time I fly. The TSA goons are really coming into their own now, as our own home-grown Gestapo wannabes.

L: It's a sad thing… Reason number four?

Doug: As P.J. O'Rourke says in a recent book, and as I've always said, voting just encourages them.

I'm convinced that most people don't vote for candidates they believe in, but against candidates they fear. But that's not how the guy who wins sees it; the more votes he gets, the more he thinks he's got a mandate to rule – even if all his votes are really just votes against his opponent. Some people justify this, saying it minimizes harm to vote for the lesser of two evils. That's nonsense, because it still leaves you voting for evil. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Incidentally, I got as far as this point in 1980, when I was on the Phil Donahue show. I had the whole hour on national TV all to myself, and I felt in top form. It was actually the day before the national election, when Jimmy Carter was the incumbent, running against Ronald Reagan. After I made some economic observations, Donahue accused me of intending to vote for Reagan. I said that I was not, and as sharp as Donahue was, he said, "Well, you're not voting for Carter, so you must be voting Libertarian…"

I said no, and had to explain why not. I believed then just as I do now. And it was at about this point when the audience, which had been getting restive, started getting really upset with me. I never made it to point five.

Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. That same audience, when I pointed out that their taxes were high and were being wasted, contained an individual who asked, "Why do we have to pay for things with our taxes? Why doesn't the government pay for it?" I swear that's what he said; it's on tape. If you could go back and watch the show, you'd see that the audience clapped after that brilliant question. Which was when I first realized that while the situation is actually hopeless, it's also quite comic…

L: [Laughs]

Doug: And things have only gotten worse since then, with decades more public education behind us.

L: I bet that guy works in the Obama administration now, where they seem to think exactly as he did; the government will just pay for everything everyone wants with money it doesn't have.

Doug: [Chuckles] Maybe so. He'd now be of an age where he's collecting Social Security and Medicare, plus food stamps, and likely gaming the system for a bunch of other freebies. Maybe he's so discontent with his miserable life that he goes to both Tea Party and Green Party rallies to kill time. I do believe we're getting close to the endgame. The system is on the verge of falling apart. And the closer we get to the edge, the more catastrophic the collapse it appears we're going to have.

Which leads me to point number five: Your vote doesn't count. If I'd gotten to say that to the Donahue audience, they probably would have stoned me. People really like to believe that their individual votes count. Politicians like to say that every vote counts, because it gets everyone into busybody mode, makes voters complicit in their crimes. But statistically, any person's vote makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. Thinking their vote counts seems to give people who need it an inflated sense of self-worth.

That's completely apart from the fact – as voters in Chicago in 1960 and Florida in 2000 can tell you – when it actually does get close, things can be, and often are, rigged. As Stalin famously said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.

Anyway, officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want them to do, once they are in office. They neither know, nor care, what you want. You're just another mark, a mooch, a source of funds.

L: The idea of political representation is a myth, and a logical absurdity. One person can only represent his own opinions – if he's even thought them out. If someone dedicated his life to studying another person, he might be able to represent that individual reasonably accurately. But given that no two people are completely – or even mostly – alike, it's completely impossible to represent the interests of any group of people.

Doug: The whole constellation of concepts is ridiculous. This leads us to the subject of democracy. People say that if you live in a democracy, you should vote. But that begs the question of whether democracy itself is any good. And I would say that, no, it's not. Especially a democracy unconstrained by a constitution. That, sadly, is the case in the US, where the Constitution is 100% a dead letter. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule dressed up in a suit and tie. It's no way for a civilized society to be run. At this point, it's a democracy consisting of two wolves and a sheep, voting about what to eat for dinner.

L: Okay, but in our firmly United State of America today, we don't live in your ideal society. It is what it is, and if you don't vote the bums out, they remain in office. What do you say to the people who say that if you don't vote, if you don't raise a hand, then you have no right to complain about the results of the political process?

Doug: But I do raise a hand, constantly. I try to change things by influencing the way people think. I'd just rather not waste my time or degrade myself on unethical and futile efforts like voting. Anyway, that argument is more than fallacious, it's ridiculous and spurious. Actually, only the non-voter does have a right to complain – it's the opposite of what they say. Voters are assenting to whatever the government does; a nonvoter can best be compared to someone who refuses to join a mob. Only he really has the right to complain about what they do.

L: Okay then, if the ethical man shouldn't vote in the national elections coming up, what should he do?

Doug: I think it's like they said during the war with Viet Nam: Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came? I also like to say: Suppose they levied a tax, and nobody paid? And at this time of year: Suppose they gave an election, and nobody voted?

The only way to truly delegitimize a corrupt system is by not voting. When tin-plated dictators around the world have their rigged elections, and people stay home in droves, even today's "we love governments of all sorts" international community won't recognize the results of the election.

L: Delegitimizing evil… and without coercion, or even force. That's a beautiful thing, Doug. I'd love to see the whole crooked, festering, parasitical mass in Washington – and similar places – get a total vote of no-confidence.

Doug: Indeed. Now, I realize that my not voting won't make that happen. My not voting doesn't matter any more than some naïve person's voting does. But at least I'll know that what I did was ethical. You have to live with yourself. That's only possible if you try to do the right thing.

L: At least you won't have blood on your hands.

Doug: That's exactly the point.

L: A friendly amendment: you do staunchly support voting with your feet.

Doug: Ah, that's true. Unfortunately, the idea of the state has spread over the face of the earth like an ugly skin disease. All of the governments of the world are, at this point, growing in extent and power – and rights violations – like cancers. But still, that is one way I am dealing with the problem; I'm voting with my feet. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. It's idiotic to sit around like a peasant and wait to see what they do to you.

To me, it makes much more sense to live as a perpetual tourist, staying no more than six months of the year in any one place. Tourists are courted and valued, whereas residents and citizens are viewed as milk cows. And before this crisis is over, they may wind up looking more like beef cows. Entirely apart from that, it keeps you from getting into the habit of thinking like a medieval serf. And I like being warm in the winter, and cool in the summer.

L: And, as people say: "What if everyone did that?" Well, you'd see people migrating towards the least predatory states where they could enjoy the most freedom, and create the most wealth for themselves and their posterity. That sort of voting with your feet could force governments to compete for citizens, which would lead to more places where people can live as they want. It could become a worldwide revolution fought and won without guns.

Doug: That sounds pretty idealistic, but I do believe this whole sick notion of the nation-state will come to an end within the next couple generations. It makes me empathize with Lenin when he said, "The worse it gets, the better it gets." Between jet travel, the Internet, and the bankruptcy of governments around the world, the nation-state is a dead duck. As we've discussed before, people will organize into voluntary communities we call phyles.

L: That's the name given to such communities by science fiction author Neal Stephenson in his book The Diamond Age, which we discussed in our conversation on Speculator's Fiction. Well, we've talked quite a bit – what about investment implications?

Doug: First, don't expect anything that results from this US election to do any real, lasting good. And if, by some miracle, it did, the short-term implications would be very hard economic times. What to do in either case is what we write about in our big-picture newsletter, The Casey Report.

More important, however, is to have a healthy and useful psychological attitude. For that, you need to stop thinking politically, stop wasting time on elections, entitlements, and such nonsense. You've got to use all of your time and brain power to think economically. That's to say, thinking about how to allocate your various intellectual, personal, and capital assets, to survive the storm – and even thrive, if you play your cards right.

L: Very good. I like that: think economically, not politically. Thanks, Doug!

Doug: My pleasure.

Irrespective of whether one agrees with Doug's politics, his investing record speaks for itself. And just like him, the analysts and editors at Casey Research dig deep in their respective fields and are blunt in their assessments. One thing many agree that the US will have to face, no matter the outcome of the presidential election, is its growing debt crisis.

37 thoughts on “Doug Casey's Top Five Reasons Not to Vote

  1. At least be accurate when espousing nihilist anarchism.

    Mao didn't say the 'power of the state grows from the barrell of the gun'.

    He said "Political power grows out of the barrell of a gun".

  2. Reference Ted Oct 25, 1:58PM/jbp Oct 25, 2:21PM

    The bottom line of the Durant's "Democracy
    Article" is Chapter XVIII Part IV. NOSTRUM.

    As Ted says "Hang in everyone" we are covering necessary stuff
    so let's keep ideas for solutions coming.


  3. Two rules I live by:

    1. If I don't understand the rules of the game, then I don't play.

    2. If I don't aprrove of the rules of the game, then I don't play either.

    I'm not voting either! Only guy I liked in this election was Ron Paul.and the rule makers made certain he would not be one of our choices.

    1. Ron Paul was/is my choice as well. He was the only candidate who really believes in liberty as our founding fathers did. I did notice that the young people really liked him. Maybe there is still a chance with his son Rand Paul to be president.

    2. Guys please!!!!! If you cannot see a difference between these two I don't know what you have been looking at. Now, I'm not saying the difference is big, but at least the Republican's are selling out our country slower than the Democrats. I have voted in every election back to Nixon and do you know how many times I've voted "for" someone? Exactly twice - Reagan. Every other time its been to vote against a worse choice - sad isn't it, but sometimes we have to do the best we can as bad as it may be - sad again, but a fact. Hey, I liked Ron Paul in many ways as well (scared the heck out of me in some ways as well), but he ain't running right now! You and others stay home - we give it to the communist...... and then let's see where we are in 4 years!!!!!!

      1. Hi Ted, I see a huge difference in "these two." Just because I liked Ron Paul doesn't mean I am not going to vote. I guess I am in the same boat as you are. I've been voting since Nixon as well, never missed a presidential election - way too important. I've voted twice "for" someone just as you, Reagan. And I must say I was wishing there wasn't a two term limit for the Presidency at that time because I would have voted for him a third term.

        No worries mate, I will be voting against the evil we are facing now in the WH. We can't survive another 4 years of this administration.

        1. Re: We can't survive another 4 years of this administration.
          Oh . . . we probably will. But the after affects will hammer our children and grandchildren. Hopefully, I will be dead when it happens.

      2. Ted, it's not 1950. We're vacationing in Viet Nam now, not fighting the commies there. Russia is a mess. There's no nuclear arms race. To infer that Obama is a communist is not helpful. Obama's done as good as anyone at stabilizing the trauma. You should be more concerned about the corporations that now have personhood and totally crashed the global economy a few years ago.

        No Republican nor Democrat is going to be able to fix this mess in our lifetime. At best our economy will be stagnant for the next 20 years or so. This whole notion of 'getting back to where we were' is futile. Where we were isn't there anymore.

        Regarding your man Reagan: Jimmy Carter asked the country to tighten it's belt. Reagan said the best days are ahead. I can see why everyone voted for him. He talked the talk, but then went and grew the government much bigger than it had ever been (oh yeah, remember all the deregulation?). It has not gotten any smaller since then.

        Our choice in this country is to provide services for people who need them or just cut them loose and deal with the consequences. I'm not ready for the latter. Corporate America is not going to step in and help anybody. It's not profitable. I don't know about you, but I don't have a wall around my house and I don't have enough amo to protect my family.

        1. Sorry, look at his background - he is a communist, Marxist, socialist. Take your pick. It may not be the '50s, but those models all lead to the same place today.
          I do agree we have a very tough road ahead regardless of the office holder. Our country is so large, so diverse I doubt there is any consensus any more about what America is or should be. We have failed to educate our people about the principles on which this country was founded, we have rewarded all the wrong behaviors and we are reaping the rewards of our foolishness. But, I still have hope!!!!!

          1. gg: I did see Obama's America. It's a conservative version of a Michael Moore movie. I'm in the movie business. This film is full of holes. At least as many as Michael Moore's films. All films are entertainment. The way they are shot is carefully designed. Every second is edited to say exactly what the filmmaker wants to convey. Nothing is random or to chance. An interview sentence may say the opposite of what the editor wants in the film, so with a couple of edits one can make the sentence say the opposite of its intention. I do this all the time. The viewer, of course, doesn't know this and thinks what the editor wants. Again, don't ever try to get your facts from a film. We live in a 1984 society. You, me, the stock market; we all respond to perception. We really need to confirm 'facts' these days. Beware.

            PS I think we probably agree on most things. I'm fairly conservative. In my career I've been fortunate to see first hand how easily people are influenced and how history is being re-written. I'm ready to get back to one person, one voice, one vote. Outlaw political ads, outlaw lobbyists, outlaw unions, outlaw corporate personhood, outlaw super pacs, etc. etc.

          2. Gene, thank you for the insight. Always appreciated when one knows from experience. I know people are influenced easily. I haven't based any of my opinions from this movie. Most of my opinions of our President were based on the book he wrote himself about his life and his own opinions. I have to say his book did influence me, and none of those opinions have been changed by his service as our commander in chief......

            I totally agree with your last sentence. Wouldn't that be great!

            Thank you.

  4. How interesting and disgusting at the same time. Our entire system is falling down all around us and this guy says nothing we do makes any differnence anyway. I hope I never have such a blase' attitude about the things that affect my life and country. I do agree though that those we put into office fail to do our bidding and yet they keep getting sent back not to do our bidding over and over again. I also wonder if our corrupt system can be fixed, but nothing will ever happen if we all sit down and quit. As my old mother used to say "can't never did anything". Hang in everyone! P.S. I love jp's suggestion.

    1. Ted:
      Checkout “Is Democracy a Failure?” in “The
      Pleasures of Philosophy” by Will and Ariel
      Durant, for an alternative approach to getting
      qualified individuals to "run the country".
      But, perhaps the "sacredness" of democracy
      is too deeply ingrained for us to consider
      an alternative means even if it could reasonably
      work better. jbp

    2. Hint: How do we get outstanding Brain Surgeons
      licensed to practice their skills without using
      the "folly" of a vote to get them credentialed?

  5. If you look at and study the many types of governments of the world, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Capitalism, etc., they are all good until distorted and or changed by the intervention of the human mind and greed and laziness.

  6. On the military side. He never mentioned anything about the draft. I feel everyone should be drafted. If you quit school. You go into "Boot Camp" automatically. If you graduate from high school, you go to boot camp BEFORE you go to college. Absolutely no exceptions. One arm, one leg, whatever. You're going to do something here in the land of the free, you'll be able to do something in the military. After boot camp, you can choose to go to college or stay in the military. The Swiss have a program not much different than this. The country will always be ready for bodies to fight, even though we don't use bayonets and horses anymore. This will instill some order in the lives and protect the innocent. The rich will have reason to enter the service to protect the millions they inherited and those on the rise will, hopefully, be inspired do better than their parents. I've served 8 years from 1959 thru 1966 and protected the wealth of Bank of America and others. I am now able to fight for those that are without employment, homes, insurance. Those that have more should pay more since they have more to be protected by our military.

  7. The horrendous waste of money on Campaign Finance
    should also be included amongst the Reasons.

    Also read "Is Democracy a Failure?" in "The
    Pleasures of Philosophy" by Will and Ariel
    Durant. Money would be more effectively
    spent in the Durant's envisioned approach.

  8. We live in a republic, not a democracy. While things are bad, if the only ones voting are the ones getting the handouts the USA is not for long.

    1. Actually, it is far more complicated than a Republic. The individual states are Republics. When the Governors appointed Senators the Seanate was a Federation of Republics. However, the house members were always voted on by the people (or the Mob, as Madison called them) making the US House a Republican body. Then there was the executive branch whose job was to execute the laws that these two disparate bodies could agree on.

      Moreover, many states (especially New York and Virginia) were so independent that they refused to sign the Constitution without adding a clause to their approval stating that they only signed because secession was legal.

      Let us simply state that the Constitution is dead and has been for some time. What we have now is more akin to the Matmos in Barbarella the the vision of the founders.

  9. This country was started by many that were rich and rode over here on the Nina, Pinta, and the Santa Maria. They were rich in Europe and did not work. Others did their bidding for them. The same thing happened here in the new land. The rich drew up a constitution that would guarantee them their secure financial place in the new land. There were and still are a very few people that are allowed to assimilate into the upper financial level. They don't care one dime about those of less status. Their goal is to take the profits they gain out of this country and plant it elsewhere in the world. This will them to control the lives of those that have less money than them. We are told and have been told this is a world economy. I firmly agree but, why not support the country you made your fortune in. You have much more than you will need in your life style even when it grows. How much is enough or is it just plain greed?

    1. Hey CT:
      Got some class envy going on here? I will still contend that the republic in which we live has created more wealth for more people than any other system in history. Darn gotta (or at least used to) get out and work for it. Wealth nor poverty is constant and people are going up and down each side of the scale daily. The sad part is the group that feels they are entitled to be subsidized for just existing (Thank you Lyndon Johnson!) do vote - and never forget, the government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
      P.S. I do love your stance on compulsory military service. I wouldn't trade mine for anything, learned alot about people and leadership during that time that has really paid benefits in my corporate career.

    2. Incorrect. A few of the first settlers who were rich but were of the wrong religion came to the US.
      The three ships landed in Hispaniola, not the Continent that is now the US.

      The majority of people who were at Okacroke, Plymouth and Jamestown were dirt poor or petty nobility who had been stripped of their lands and property by the Crown.

      However, in the New World some people did attain power and the Constitution was drawn up to preserve their new-found positions. For the most part, that did not happen until well after the original settlers were dead, but it did happen.

      As for the rest of your diatribe, the underclass in this country no longer seek to succede, the seek to suckle at the government's teat. The government, knowing that their power grows with every dependent "suckler" they can create, encourages that. That, however, is a phenomenon of the 20th century in the US. Unfortunately, it is a phenomenon found in all failing powers. (See Darius, the fall of or Rome, the fall of.)

      There are parts of Casey's argument I detest but I agree that we are on our way out.

  10. So then who will vote? - all the government unions, bureaucrats and receivers of subsidies who want more and more goodies at your expense.

  11. This guy is the most negative person I can ever remember. The problem is, there is some truth in what he says. Right now I am going to vote for the lesser of two evils and go for the businessman rather than the socialist.

  12. This is just what the statists would like you to do. Opt out by not voting. Then they will run you over even more than they do now. You clearly have objections to the fact that we have lost our Constitution; why do you not recognize that that is coming from only one side and join the fight against that loss! YOU are the problem. By opting out, you are enabling/supporting the statists.
    Personally, I like JP's idea!

  13. Our last hurrah ended when we let the GOP fradulently disqualify Ron Paul. Bribed with printed money, we let freedom slip from our grasp and are about to discover the delights of unlimited government that the Russians and Chinese knew so well. Let's hope our escape plans work.

  14. Quite obviously, Casey has thought about these matters long and deeply. Though I do not agree with him entirely he makes some very salient points. However, I have a couple of major problems. Don't stop with the criticisms. Read on. Like Casey, I have serious concerns about our current status and where we are headed.

    "The tough get going", does not mean that people run away to balming climes. It means that they fight back. Casey has made money from his own efforts and intelligence so, unlike many, he is not getting a free ride. But it is a ride free from responsibility, even to his readers. He is wrong occasionally and resorts to the same sort of spin (though to a less offensive degree) as governments. His ideal world, free of boundries, with little or no expenditure on defense (even in his borderless Utopia there will need to be police and fire protection, all of which can become weapons of subjugation.) In my case, I spent time in Africa which has many of the elements he desires; it is a distopia . . . NOT a utopia. If you doubt me, come to Ethiopia, Samalia, and all of West Africa with me sometime.

    His attitudes remind me of those who fled to Canada to avoid Vietnam. If they all had simply stood and fought back the jails could not have held us and the war would have ended much sooner. I detested those progeny of the "easy" life. I stayed and fought, against the wishes of my wife and family. We made a difference.

    I also marched for Civil Rights and (from both causes) have broken ribs, a punctured lung and dead friends to show for it. We made a difference. Of course, in both cases the difference we made was a respite, not permanent change. The fight now is for permanent change. Can we get there? The chances are declining logarithmically but an aroused and involved people are the most powerful force on earth. Can we do that? Here, Casey and I agree. It is almost certainly too late for the US. But I hate it. I was born and reared on a farm with Granparents who would spend the evenings reading; who toiled in the soil and who taught me how to work, how to live with honour, decency and kindness when needed But firmness when required. And it is required. There are bad (sometimes very bad) people out there.

    This election will show me whether I should join Mr. Casey as a pampered vagabond or whether there is anything worth fighting for left in the center of the nation. Both coasts fell into the cesspool of statism/fascism long ago.

    If Mr. Casey would consent to an exchange of ideas, not a debate but something more along the lines of intellectual probing between Lowenstein, Buckley, Muggeridge or Galbraith and Buckley on "Firing Line" either reported, recorded or even televised, I would be happy to consent (these happened before the formal debate format at South Carolina). After all, we are simply two people (hopefully intelligent) trying to find a solution for problems that are rapidly becoming insoluble.

    If not, I understand.

    Finally, Doug! How could you possibly be surprised at any idiocy on the Donohue show? Or was that simply a setup on your part? If so; well done!

  15. Reason number six: In the name of efficiency, we have eliminated paper ballots and substituted electronic votes that can and will be changed, especially in pivotal states during presidential elections. Notice that exit polls often no longer seem able to accurately predict the winner, a key sign that something has gone quite wrong. People coming out of the voting booth don't generally lie about who they voted for, and when the totals don't match these types of counts, you can bet there is a real problem.

    A paper ballot provides physical evidence of who was voted for. Turning the counts over to unknown electronic gate keepers is one more aspect of the complete loss of Constitutional freedoms here in the US. Apparently just saying such a thing makes one a radical these days.

    1. Doesn't sound radical at all to me. I just heard on the news that some voting machines (do not remember the state) were changing votes for Romney to votes for Obama. If the voter did not notice the change in this technologically wonderful voting age, then he/she voted for a candidate he did not intend. Your are far from radical.

      I still believe in voting but would love the scenario of no one showing up at the polls and kicking out the greedy takers in WA D.C.

      I also like the idea of being a tourist. We have already talked about that kind of life.

      If people started leaving the US choosing citizen friendly countries, think of all those tax payers' money going out the window. Our Constitution has been stomped into the ground, and most of our citizens are not even noticing.....yet.

      1. Many people don't understand that you are voting whether you go to the polls, mail-in your ballot, or do nothing. If you do nothing and like Mitt, you're giving your negligence to President Obama. If you do nothing and like President Obama, you're giving your negligence to Mitt. You have a choice of the 3 ways. Exercise by going to the polls, mail in your ballot, or sit on your duff and watch someone win even if it is not your favored person.

Comments are closed.