There is no such thing as bad design, but bad policy and decision making forces compromised creativity and unresponsive architecture. By not voting you are complicit in the creation and enforcement of these policies. my reason to vote. What is yours?
16 Comments
cameron,
abstaining is still voicing your opinion
Building in the public realm is a battle between progress and restriction and if we care about our profession having a voice in the process we need to at least take a stand. Even if you don't believe in the presidential the down ticket candidates can improve or damage community just as much.
I'm sorry but there certainly is such a thing as bad design -- its all around us!
holz: Isn't not voting just refusing to answer the question?
Oh, and nice job, Cameron.
running into a burning building or calling the fire department is the same thing, a call to action. recognizing a building is burning and watching it burn is not doing jack.
my job is to cancel out one vote for the other side. if i don't vote, his/hers won't get cancelled. if the people that think like me don't vote, a LOT of votes for the other side won't get cancelled out.
my wife and i will only succeed in cancelling out my parents' votes, the way i see it, so that's our responsibility. the rest is up to you people.
LB, if the question is poorly framed, then no. currently, our elections process if very poorly framed
is very poorly
I understand that statement, holz, and agree (for the most part), but even though I try, I cannot, absolutely cannot, logically compute how not voting makes any sense whatsoever. It's not a statement, it's not an anti-statement, it's not any action at all. It doesn't empower anyone, it doesn't effect anything except giving the pundits reason to moan about how apathetic the electorate is. I just honestly don't get it.
choosing not to vote is a valid action. i will yield that this action concedes empowerment and has consequences, but it isn't wasted. it sends a message - one that you don't have to agree with. an undeserved vote is a cheap vote.
But it *doesn't* send a message. No one is trying to appeal to non-voters, they're only relieved that those people won't be voting against them.
If you want to change the "poorly-framed" system, non-action is definitely NOT going to do it.
lb,
if everyone abstained, it would send an overwhelming message. choosing not to vote is different from being apathetic and not voting.
i get what you are saying and where you are coming from. but if i go into the polls, see the choices on the ticket, and think they both suck, i can't force myself to vote. i don't see voting for the lesser of two evils as a valid vote.
but i also don't think our country should be a 2 party system. that is something i would overwhelmingly like to change. this notion that america is a center left or center right is asinine. if we had to choose between 4+ parties, that would require power-sharing (a la most other countries) i think there would be less pendulum shifting, and a steadier progression.
perhaps i'm looking for utopia?
and this might be the only thing i've ever disagreed with you on. hilarious!
the only way to resolve this would be to have a 'none of the above' on the ballot. a non-vote would then still be registered as an intentional action.
until that day, i'm with lb: a non-vote is nothing, has no message, takes no responsibility, and equates with the non-vote of those who are simply apathetic.
There doesn't need to be a "none of the above" option on the ballot to give voice to citizens that want to move beyond the current 2 party system. We have the option of voting for 3rd party candidates. If everyone voted for 3rd party candidates, it would send an overwhelming message.
there were about 8-9 choices for presidency in my ballot, including one for green party and one for ralph nader.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.