自从“白宫的那个家伙”宣誓就职以来，我一直在思考这类问题。以下是我对上述三点的看法。1.与爱国者和民族主义者可能会说的相反，投票是一种权利和特权。要使它成为一种责任，需要至少有一个候选人，他的立场是值得投票的。当候选人的观点与人们所珍视的一切(或大部分)都相反时，投票给两害相权取其轻的候选人是毫无价值的……反正那些葡萄是酸的。2.我们的民主靠资本主义运行，而资本主义又靠金钱运行。我不知道具体的百分比，但人们普遍认为，那些在货币彩票中排名最后的人，在投票箱中排名最后。(可能)也有例外，但我认为，相对而言，这种情况很少，而且在近代史上更少。 3. How do we justify the two-party system? Well, one answer to that might be 'It is just the way we do government', with corollary thinking being something like: 'If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.' Somewhere over time, corollary thinking failed, because the original intent of the system became corrupted by partisanship-at-any-cost. Members of both camps continue to deny this, while vociferously blaming their opponents, 'across the aisle'. That they can't have it both ways without being hypocrites does not cross their minds. Their reputations don't matter---(but that is another upcoming blog post, isn't it?)

There is a lot of anger, out there in the horse latitudes. More than I've seen in an entire lifetime (not counting part of the 1950s).

Rather than trying to explain why it is a societal good for everyone to vote, shouldnt we start from the position that universal participation is the norm or the default? If so the question becomes what is the benefit, moral or otherwise, to not voting? The onus should be on those who do not vote; any claim of benefit would appear to be only selfishly and shallowly justified.