Are you going to vote this year?

[MNeagle]

Are you going to vote this year?

[old steel]

Not a chance, then again i am Canadian. ;D

[1970 silver art]

Nope. I do not plan to vote this year. There is nobody that I am interested in voting for this year.

[mick silver]

yep i will tueday

[chad]

down the ballot, 100% against incumbents. all new, i don't care who the party is. it's my version of term limits.

[willie pete]

Already got 'er done early.....mailed it in ;D

[RJB]

It may be pointless, but I'll vote all third party or atleast anti-incumbent.

I enjoyed seeing Sen Jim Talent in MO lose to McCaskell by about the same number as those who voted libertarian. For a popular Democrat, I'll vote for the Green candidate. Screw those SOBs.

[Gaillo]

Nope.
I have better things to do with my time that play Diebold's "Pretend you're making a difference" video game. :-\

If voting actually changed anything, it would be illegal! 8)

[Ponce]

What for? same Zionist different face mask........

[woodman]

I won't participate in fraud, nor lend credence to a criminal syndicate by participating in it's game.

[palani]

No voting but I will extend an offer to all office holders to voluntarily participate in a charitable trust with an established constitution.

[Silver Rocket Bitches!]

There is a proposal on the ballot to keep our local library funded so I'm going to vote for that. While I'm there I may as well vote against the incumbents.

Anyone in CA voting for prop 19? I don't think it's gonna pass.

[joe_momma]

Vote tomorrow here in Cali - fortunately the Bay Guardian (the local throw away free paper) has put its voting guide right on the cover - I now now know how to vote - choose the exact opposite of their recommendations!

I'll vote against Prop 19 (marijuana). It looks like this one will lose. (IMHO California will decriminalize marijuana sometime in the next 4 years or so - societal mores changing).

[Apparition]

I was planning on voting "yes" on CA's Prop 19 but it's too late for me to submit my absentee ballot and I'm too lazy to vote at a polling station.

Oh well.

In addition, I doubt that Prop 19 will pass anyway.

[Book]

http://l.yimg.com/ea/img/-/090705/perfect-30_mg_6518-155121e.jpg

http://archuletafanscene.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/poll.gif

http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/screen-shot-2010-09-20-at-8-35-49-pm.png

They hate us for our Freedoms. If you don't vote the terrorists win!

Viva la Democracy!

:D

[drafter]

Voting has got me jack sh** so far, so no reason to think that's going to change. I'm done playing the "my vote counts" game.

[madfranks]

(IMHO California will decriminalize marijuana sometime in the next 4 years or so - societal mores changing).


Methinks that legalizing marijuana has more to do with taxable revenue than morality... ;)

[osoab]

I did the early voting.

Now, why would I do such a move considering the forum membership and the same crap on both sides of the ticket?

Well, we have an INDEPENDENT Sheriff Candidate running. He is running against a former lawyer who is the current sheriff for the past 12 years.

I have known the guy for a few years. Bought some metals from him a time or three.
I actually donated to his campaign and put his yard sign out. I have never done this before.

This guy understands the Constitutional Authority that resides within the office of the Sheriff.
I don't know if he has talked to Sheriff Mack, but he has been told by others that he should be in contact with him.

Win or lose, I will stop back and see him after the election is over.

Other than that. No to retain all judges, and all 3rd party candidates/non incumbents.

I also can't believe you Cali folks are not voting for Prop 19. Losers.

[Down1]

I will vote Tuesday here in Mass.
If there were no ballot questions I don't know if I would vote or not.
I will be a positive dude and vote yes on all 3 questions.

[Twisted Titan]

....................

[millwright]

Tomorrow i get the exiting opportunity to vote for Rand Paul. One of the only real choices on the entire ballot nation wide.

[iOWNme]

I removed my name some time ago, it was more of a moral issue to me. Once awake to Democracy i had little choice in the matter if i was to remain honest to myself.


When you vote in a Democracy you are participating in Thieving and Pirating, 2 things i cannot morally swallow. If voting for a seat, thats one thing, but voting on policies, propositions, etc is a code word for STEALING from me to fund your idea of 'Freedom'. Which is why every other Empire in history that allowed itself to be converted from a Republic to a Democracy, allowed all citizens to vote, and pushed victims Rights, ALL suffered the same ill fate.

The leeching from the producing class to the non/under producing class is the very destruction of the American Dream. That is the very definition of Democracy. That is also why this country was never referred to as a 'Democracy' until the 'New Deal' (Communist subversion) took place in the 1930's.

Democracy is the practice where the man promising to steal the most will win, and only the biggest thieves can get elected. For the majority of their vote will come from people who think they are going to 'get' something in return. That translates to me funding projects that are 100% immoral, unjust, and downright SATANIC in my book.


f * c k Democracy. Yeah, i said it.

[Heimdhal]

I think Im just going to vote for the locals, the county seats. There isnt a single person running for anything bigger I can bring myself to vote for. There is a libertarian running for senate against christ and rubio, so I might vote for him, but other than that, Im abstaining from the Governor race and the like.

Hell, I have to laugh because just tonight I got a call on the work phone, a recording, talking about how Jennifer Carrol, who is Rick Scott (the republican running for governor in Fl) Lt Gov is a long time member of AIPAC and wholly supports the state of israel anand yadda yadda. ::)

[mick silver]

we all need to vote in a new crew it can not be as bad as the last ass holes that there now

[Shami-Amourae]

I'm sorry, but I feel you don't have a right to bitch about your government if you don't vote.

California here, Voted Yes Prop 19 and Prop 23. The John and Ken Show voter guide (http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/JohnandKen.html?feed=387620&article=7652164) is mostly accurate, but I voted for Chelene Nightingale for governor.

[willie pete]

I think Im just going to vote for the locals, the county seats. There isnt a single person running for anything bigger I can bring myself to vote for. There is a libertarian running for senate against christ and rubio, so I might vote for him, but other than that, Im abstaining from the Governor race and the like.

Hell, I have to laugh because just tonight I got a call on the work phone, a recording, talking about how Jennifer Carrol, who is Rick Scott (the republican running for governor in Fl) Lt Gov is a long time member of AIPAC and wholly supports the state of israel anand yadda yadda. ::)




Yea....Rick Scott.....a little bit of his Bio:

Richard Lynn "Rick" Scott (born December 1, 1952) is a politician running for the governor of Florida. Prior he was former Chief Executive of health care giant Columbia/HCA from which he was forced to resign in 1997 by the board of directors for activities during his reign which led to the company admitting to 14 felonies and paying a $600+ million dollar settlement of the largest Justice department medicare fraud case in US history.

I'd heard when he was "forced" out of HCA...he took $300m with him.....it's said he's spent $73m so far of his own $$$'s running the campaign..I'm thinking here, someone correct me, these guys that spend tens and more of millions of their own $$$'s to win an elected seat in gov't, have to be Meglamaniacs

[Heimdhal]

I think Im just going to vote for the locals, the county seats. There isnt a single person running for anything bigger I can bring myself to vote for. There is a libertarian running for senate against christ and rubio, so I might vote for him, but other than that, Im abstaining from the Governor race and the like.

Hell, I have to laugh because just tonight I got a call on the work phone, a recording, talking about how Jennifer Carrol, who is Rick Scott (the republican running for governor in Fl) Lt Gov is a long time member of AIPAC and wholly supports the state of israel anand yadda yadda. ::)




Yea....Rick Scott.....a little bit of his Bio:

Richard Lynn "Rick" Scott (born December 1, 1952) is a politician running for the governor of Florida. Prior he was former Chief Executive of health care giant Columbia/HCA from which he was forced to resign in 1997 by the board of directors for activities during his reign which led to the company admitting to 14 felonies and paying a $600+ million dollar settlement of the largest Justice department medicare fraud case in US history.

I'd heard when he was "forced" out of HCA...he took $300m with him.....it's said he's spent $73m so far of his own $$$'s running the campaign..I'm thinking here, someone correct me, these guys that spend tens and more of millions of their own $$$'s to win an elected seat in gov't, have to be Meglamaniacs



Yeah hes a shady dude for sure.

Our choices are Rick Scott, who stole a bunch of money, and his opponent Alex Sink, who lost a bunch of money. Sounds like if they teamed up, they'd be the perfect politician for todays system.

[willie pete]

I think Im just going to vote for the locals, the county seats. There isnt a single person running for anything bigger I can bring myself to vote for. There is a libertarian running for senate against christ and rubio, so I might vote for him, but other than that, Im abstaining from the Governor race and the like.

Hell, I have to laugh because just tonight I got a call on the work phone, a recording, talking about how Jennifer Carrol, who is Rick Scott (the republican running for governor in Fl) Lt Gov is a long time member of AIPAC and wholly supports the state of israel anand yadda yadda. ::)




Yea....Rick Scott.....a little bit of his Bio:

Richard Lynn "Rick" Scott (born December 1, 1952) is a politician running for the governor of Florida. Prior he was former Chief Executive of health care giant Columbia/HCA from which he was forced to resign in 1997 by the board of directors for activities during his reign which led to the company admitting to 14 felonies and paying a $600+ million dollar settlement of the largest Justice department medicare fraud case in US history.

I'd heard when he was "forced" out of HCA...he took $300m with him.....it's said he's spent $73m so far of his own $$$'s running the campaign..I'm thinking here, someone correct me, these guys that spend tens and more of millions of their own $$$'s to win an elected seat in gov't, have to be Meglamaniacs



Yeah hes a shady dude for sure.

Our choices are Rick Scott, who stole a bunch of money, and his opponent Alex Sink, who lost a bunch of money. Sounds like if they teamed up, they'd be the perfect politician for todays system.



Yep, you're right Herr Heimdhal...I'm I crazy or what? but if I was worth $250m and in my middle to late 50's, I'd be out on a lake somewhere or in Idaho looking for treasure ;), and while I'm there, do some fly-fishing...I wouldn't be running for an elected office

[Heimdhal]

I think Im just going to vote for the locals, the county seats. There isnt a single person running for anything bigger I can bring myself to vote for. There is a libertarian running for senate against christ and rubio, so I might vote for him, but other than that, Im abstaining from the Governor race and the like.

Hell, I have to laugh because just tonight I got a call on the work phone, a recording, talking about how Jennifer Carrol, who is Rick Scott (the republican running for governor in Fl) Lt Gov is a long time member of AIPAC and wholly supports the state of israel anand yadda yadda. ::)




Yea....Rick Scott.....a little bit of his Bio:

Richard Lynn "Rick" Scott (born December 1, 1952) is a politician running for the governor of Florida. Prior he was former Chief Executive of health care giant Columbia/HCA from which he was forced to resign in 1997 by the board of directors for activities during his reign which led to the company admitting to 14 felonies and paying a $600+ million dollar settlement of the largest Justice department medicare fraud case in US history.

I'd heard when he was "forced" out of HCA...he took $300m with him.....it's said he's spent $73m so far of his own $$$'s running the campaign..I'm thinking here, someone correct me, these guys that spend tens and more of millions of their own $$$'s to win an elected seat in gov't, have to be Meglamaniacs



Yeah hes a shady dude for sure.

Our choices are Rick Scott, who stole a bunch of money, and his opponent Alex Sink, who lost a bunch of money. Sounds like if they teamed up, they'd be the perfect politician for todays system.



Yep, you're right Herr Heimdhal...I'm I crazy or what? but if I was worth $250m and in my middle to late 50's, I'd be out on a lake somewhere or in Idaho looking for treasure ;), and while I'm there, do some fly-fishing...I wouldn't be running for an elected office


For sure! Its pure socipathic narcissism. You KNOW, beyond all doubt, that Rick Scott dont give one rats fart for anyone else besides Rick Scott

[willie pete]

^^^^Absolutely Not.....he's only been in Florida for 7 years..... :D I still don't get it though.....having $250m $$$'s.....he's in his late 50's, so he's probably only got maybe 15-20 good years left,...WHY aren't you out on the lake fishing or in a nice RV cruising the country or having lunch and dinner in EVERY Euopean Capital city or opening up the coolest outside gun range around?

[agnut]

Hi all; I have a very important question to ask.

Will ALL write in votes be shown after the counting is done ? Even if there was only 1 vote cast ?

I did a write in vote and if it does NOT show up I will be pissed.

Best wishes,

Agnut

P.S. Anyone remember who I suggested to vote for years ago on the old GIM website ?



“The unbridled lust for money and power is an as yet unrecognized form of mental illness.”

[sunshine05]

I do understand your reasons for not voting, really I do. But I HAD to vote against the incumbent representative, Brad Miller. He is a dem, has been there way too long and anyone who voted for the bailouts needs to be voted against, imo. I also voted for the libertarian candidate for state senate, since Burr (R) voted for TARP.

In NC, I'm really hoping BJ Lawson wins. He is a Ron Paul republican. Not in my district but I'm pulling for him. You know, there are several RP republicans running this time and it is important to get them into office. Jake Towne in PA, John Dennis in CA, Rand Paul of course.

[Gaillo]

I'm sorry, but I feel you don't have a right to bitch about your government if you don't vote.


Your statement makes 2 fundamental assumptions:

#1 - There is any REAL difference between the candidates you are voting for, and
#2 - Your vote is actually being counted and correctly applied toward candidate election

Due to the nature of our corrupt political system, #1 is highly dubious... and the advent of electronic voting has rendered #2 an absolute falsehood.

[Apparition]

Hi all; I have a very important question to ask.

Will ALL write in votes be shown after the counting is done ? Even if there was only 1 vote cast ?

I did a write in vote and if it does NOT show up I will be pissed.

Best wishes,

Agnut

P.S. Anyone remember who I suggested to vote for years ago on the old GIM website ?



“The unbridled lust for money and power is an as yet unrecognized form of mental illness.”



They'll likely be shown but just all placed in the write-in category when the results are accumulated.

[agnut]

Hi all; I have a very important question to ask.

Will ALL write in votes be shown after the counting is done ? Even if there was only 1 vote cast ?

I did a write in vote and if it does NOT show up I will be pissed.

Best wishes,

Agnut

P.S. Anyone remember who I suggested to vote for years ago on the old GIM website ?



“The unbridled lust for money and power is an as yet unrecognized form of mental illness.”



They'll likely be shown but just all placed in the write-in category when the results are accumulated.


I sure hope my write in shows up. Mr. Simpson; first name Homer.

Agnut

[Gaillo]

I sure hope my write in shows up. Mr. Simpson; first name Homer.

Agnut



Be careful what you ask for! ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ

[iOWNme]

I'm sorry, but I feel you don't have a right to bitch about your government if you don't vote.


This is the statement of a indocturnated mind.

The TRUTH is i have all the Right in the world to bitch about people using the ballot to steal from me. For the people are much to coward to come to my home and attempt to take my money, they use 'Democracy' and a ballot to STEAL legally from me.

Moral and Just dont change by Majority whim. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter how many thieves you get to steal with you.

[k-os]

I'm sorry, but I feel you don't have a right to bitch about your government if you don't vote.


This is the statement of a indocturnated mind.

The TRUTH is i have all the Right in the world to bitch about people using the ballot to steal from me. For the people are much to coward to come to my home and attempt to take my money, they use 'Democracy' and a ballot to STEAL legally from me.

Moral and Just dont change by Majority whim. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter how many thieves you get to steal with you.



"Moral and Just dont change by Majority whim. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter how many thieves you get to steal with you."

^^^ Going in my quote file. Thanks!

[oldmansmith]

I will vote Tuesday here in Mass.
If there were no ballot questions I don't know if I would vote or not.
I will be a positive dude and vote yes on all 3 questions.

I did the same today, one and three were tax elimination/reductions and the second question was to eliminate an "affordable housing" law that lets big developers ignore local bylaws if they provide "low income" housing.

I wasn't expecting the non-binding #4 and #5.

#4 sets up a Commission to determine "if health care is a right" (Right...health care, housing and food, why should I work? As Ayn Rand said, "WHO will provide this? Blank out.")

#5 sets up a Commission to determine "If marijuana should be legal" (Hell yes)

I usually vote libertarian, but given that there were none I voted: 1. Green/Rainbow; 2. Republican (given that we are in a democratic state).

It may be waste of time but what the hell.

[Shami-Amourae]

The TRUTH is i have all the Right in the world to bitch about people using the ballot to steal from me. For the people are much to coward to come to my home and attempt to take my money, they use 'Democracy' and a ballot to STEAL legally from me.

Moral and Just dont change by Majority whim. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter how many thieves you get to steal with you.


How do you change/effect things around you then? I don't like the idea of hunkering down, waiting for the guberment to grow bigger and bigger till the Thought Police charge in through my front door and shoot everyone. If voting isn't the solution, then what is? Forgive me if I'm still indoctrinated in some aspects, but I want to see/understand things through your eyes. Do we wait till societal collapse and hope to mount a real revolution then? Things are going to Hell since of guberment growth and I want to reverse this somehow: It's getting to a point where I doubt there will ever be a time when people can be free. The only choice we have at the ballot box is the speed of the inevitable conclusion to permanent bondage to the State.

And by the way, I totally understand the difference between a Republic and Democracy (fascist tool.)

[Heimdhal]

Well, I did it, begrundingly I did it.

I voted for as many third party people as I could. If there was an option, I just picked a name. Many of these top party people I just couldnt in all good concious vote for. I am a registered republican, but I think I only voted for ONE republican, and that was a local judge and mostly because I thought she was kinda cute, even though I dont like blondes that much! ;D



The one thing I REALLY regret is that I voted for Alen West. I REALLY dont like Alen west, but I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY dont like that fuck Ron Klein who is my current congressman and there werent any third party people running on the ticket for my district. I was gonna leave it blank but my embittered hatred for Ron Klein forced my hand for the neo-con israel lover Alen West.

[k-os]

I didn't vote, for the first time in 20 years. Mainly because I am on the road, but I could have set up absentee voting. I am embarrassed to say this, but I am experiencing high levels of apathy regarding politics.

I voted in the primary, but it was just out of habit. I walked out of there knowing that my vote didn't matter.

A friend of mine always asks my opinion of who to vote for when this time of year rolls around. She respects my political opinion, and doesn't have the time or care to do the research herself. Most of the time, I explain a little bit about each of her choices, and let her decide. This year, I told her to vote for anyone she's never heard of, or whomever's name she has heard least.

[AndreaGail]

only in this poll

[Mouse]

I farted NO on everything, farted everyone out of office, farted for people that don't exist on write-ins. Fart them all

[Carbon]

If voting changed anything, it'd be illegal.

Don't vote, it only encourages them.

[Libertytree]

This is the first time in 20 years I've not voted, for the very reasons that Sui Juris pointed out.

[osoab]

I didn't vote, for the first time in 20 years. Mainly because I am on the road, but I could have set up absentee voting. I am embarrassed to say this, but I am experiencing high levels of apathy regarding politics.

I voted in the primary, but it was just out of habit. I walked out of there knowing that my vote didn't matter.

A friend of mine always asks my opinion of who to vote for when this time of year rolls around. She respects my political opinion, and doesn't have the time or care to do the research herself. Most of the time, I explain a little bit about each of her choices, and let her decide. This year, I told her to vote for anyone she's never heard of, or whomever's name she has heard least.


Why vote in primary? I only do when there is some goofy tax increase that they put in the lower turn out elections so they can get them passed. Otherwise everything else is left blank. I get blank/stupid gazes when I say "That's the way it's supposed to be" after the optical scanner beeps for an under vote.

I only cared to vote this time due to the Sheriff slot this year. This guy has been running a write in candidacy since his ballot signatures were challenged and defeated by the current Sheriff's former law partner. Messed up HUH?

Now for the governor race. I voted for the guy who got booted off of the Dem Lt Gov slot due to his "girlfriend" problems.

[Down1]

#5 sets up a Commission to determine "If marijuana should be legal" (Hell yes)



They are doing that non binding question in a few districts, not mine though.
If it is successful, in 2012 they will put a binding, statewide measure on the ballot.

[osoab]

This is the first time in 20 years I've not voted, for the very reasons that Sui Juris pointed out.


Unless there is a local reason to vote.

I truly (even if it may be moronic/sheepish) believe that at the local levels we could still put a stop to the shenanigans.

I would go vote just to move the incumbents out. Still have time in FL?

[gunDriller]

Someone ... please tell me ... "The Democrats who Voted for Obama-care have lost the House".

[osoab]

Someone ... please tell me ... "The Democrats who Voted for Obama-care have lost the House".


Aren't you in Cali? I would be worried about Jerry Brown and the Nut House. :o

[milehi]

First time in 22 years I didn't vote.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

[osoab]

As Irrelevant Election Results Start To Trickle In, A Visualization Of 100 Years Of Government Lies And Their Impact On (What's Left Of) The Economy (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/irrelevant-election-results-start-trickle-visualization-100-years-government-lies-and-their-)


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/02/2010 16:18 -0500



As election results gradually trickle in, the following chart from John Palmer presents one of the best compilations of how the government and the economy have coexisted over the past 100 years. To say that there has been much of a difference under either regime would be an overstatement: the end goal has always been the debasement of the dollar, the incurrence of more debt, the expansion of the economy courtesy of ever cheaper debt-created money, all the while nothing has actually changed. As Palmer notes, "this historical perspective visualizes economic trends and spending patterns, during good times and bad. Present-day assumptions regarding core party values have had major shifts over time, and the ridiculous extremes in voter alignment, lobbying, and legislative action are due for revision. As a basis for future shift, this data can educate a presumptive public, empowering citizens to make an informed decision on each and every election day." It appears that with broad hatred for the Fed gradually eclipsing party allegiances, that the presumptive public is finally waking up.

Full interactive graphic after the jump:

http://www.johnwpalmer.com/100/

http://www.johnwpalmer.com/100/100-medium.png

Neat Graphic. Slightly depressing.

[1970 silver art]

Well it's official. I did not vote today. Why did I not vote? Because a Congress whore is a Congress whore is a Congress whore. They are all the same to me. All liars. My cynicism got the best of me today. ;D

[Gknowmx]

A timely plug for Spooner's 'No Treason, the Constitution of No Authority'
http://jim.com/treason.htm full essay.

Spooner excerpt On voting:

II.
Let us consider these two matters, voting and tax paying, separately. And first of voting.

All the voting that has ever taken place under the Constitution, has been of such a kind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to support the Constitution, but it did not even pledge any one of them to do so, as the following considerations show.

1. In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters. But owing to the property qualifications required, it is probable that, during the first twenty or thirty years under the Constitution, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (black and white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting was concerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those then existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution.

At the present time [1869], it is probable that not more than one-sixth of the whole population are permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting is concerned, the other five-sixths can have given no pledge that they will support the Constitution.

2. Of the one-sixth that are permitted to vote, probably not more than two-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population) have usually voted. Many never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excitement.

No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period than that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for an officer who is to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have thereby pledged myself to support the government beyond that term. Therefore, on the ground of actual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than one-ninth or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually under any pledge to support the Constitution. [In recent years, since 1940, the number of voters in elections has usually fluctuated between one-third and two-fifths of the populace.]

3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a former number, viz.:

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self- defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

"Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.

"Therefore, a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, EVEN FOR THE TIME BEING. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others."

As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or, consequently, that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support the government. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge ANY ONE to support the government. It utterly fails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support of anybody. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are.

4. As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies of the government. To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at all. And as we can have no legal knowledge as to who the particular individuals are, if there are any, who are willing to be taxed for the sake of voting, we can have no legal knowledge that any particular individual consents to be taxed for the sake of voting; or, consequently, consents to support the Constitution.

5. At nearly all elections, votes are given for various candidates for the same office. Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot properly be said to have voted to sustain the Constitution. They may, with more reason, be supposed to have voted, not to support the Constitution, but specially to prevent the tyranny which they anticipate the successful candidate intends to practice upon them under color of the Constitution; and therefore may reasonably be supposed to have voted against the Constitution itself. This supposition is the more reasonable, inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them of expressing their dissent to the Constitution.

6. Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no prospect of success. Those who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have voted as they did, with a special intention, not to support, but to obstruct the exection of, the Constitution; and, therefore, against the Constitution itself.

7. As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who votes against, the Constitution. Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular one of them.

8. There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, in voting, we can only conjecture them. As a conjecture, it is probable, that a very large proportion of those who vote, do so on this principle, viz., that if, by voting, they could but get the government into their own hands (or that of their friends), and use its powers against their opponents, they would then willingly support the Constitution; but if their opponents are to have the power, and use it against them, then they would NOT willingly support the Constitution.

In short, men's voluntary support of the Constitution is doubtless, in most cases, wholly contingent upon the question whether, by means of the Constitution, they can make themselves masters, or are to be made slaves.

Such contingent consent as that is, in law and reason, no consent at all.

9. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting (if there are any such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for the acts of his agents or representatives, it cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the Constitution by voting. No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing as assent to, or support, the Constitution, unless he does it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them.

10. As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a vand does nothing towards proving that "the people of the United States," or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.

For all the reasons that have now been given, voting furnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily.

So far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the Constitution, legally speaking, has no supporters at all.



From wiki:

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority is an 1867 essay by American individualist anarchist, political philosopher and legal theorist Lysander Spooner. It is one of his most famous political tracts.

In this lengthy essay, Spooner argues that the United States Constitution is a contract of government (see: social contract theory) which was irreparably violated during the American Civil War, and is thus void. Furthermore, since the government now existing under the Constitution pursued coercive policies that were contrary to the Natural Law and to the consent of the governed, it was demonstrated that the document was unable to adequately stop many abuses against liberty or to prevent tyranny from taking hold. Spooner supports his argument by noting that the Federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation, since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it - this consent had always been assumed, but it fails the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom.

Spooner widely circulated the No Treason pamphlets, which also contained a legal defense against the crime of treason itself intended for former Confederate soldiers (hence the name of the pamphlet, arguing that "no treason" had been committed in the war by the south). These excerpts were published in DeBow's Review and some other well known southern periodicals of the time, and Spooner's writings went on to contribute to the development of libertarian political theory in the United States, and were often reprinted in early libertarian journals such as the Rampart Journal.

The libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard, leader of the more modern anarcho-capitalism movement, called No Treason "the greatest case for anarchist political philosophy ever written."[1]

[Shami-Amourae]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMtcTM9zZN4