We're doomed.
1. I was so disappointed in 2016.
2. Grassroots organizing feels good and is so much more impactful than (ugh) voting.
3. The Democrats aren't fighting hard enough against Trump, so what's the point?
4. It's better to be an informed non-voter than an uninformed voter.
5. I need to be absolutely certain before I vote, lest I vote for someone bad.
6. "I hate mailing stuff: it gives me anxiety."
7. My vote will only be symbolic, so who cares?
8. I hate being judged by people who judge me for not voting. That's very judgmental, so I won't vote, just to spite them.
9. Since my vote doesn't matter, I only want to vote for people who are perfectly aligned with my ideals.
10. Getting absentee ballots is haaaaard.
11. The Democrats aren't progressive enough for me, so I'll just let the Republicans continue to be in charge.
12. Political parties spend too much time talking to old people, so I'll show them to pay more attention to young people by not voting.
13. I'm not ready to vote this election. Maybe next election.
14. How dare my perfect candidate throw their support behind their bitter rival in the primaries?! Just for that, I won't vote!
15. I felt bad about the candidate I voted for because they weren't perfect and they didn't win, so why bother voting again?
16. The biggest issue is Climate Change, and the Democrats aren't opposing that hard enough, and we're all going to die, so why vote?
17. The candidates opposing Trump just aren't exciting enough to motivate me to vote.
18. Voting sucks time and energy away from "actually building power" with the people around you.
19. If your candidate loses, it feels awful and causes despair for years! Why risk that?
20. Voting is support of system I don't like, so by not voting I am signalling I want the system to change, because that's how it will happen.
21. Voting is too easy. Stickers are trivialities. Who can respect a system like that?
22. Registering to vote is haaaaaard.
23. I didn't have any stamps.
24. Mean people used to tell me how to vote, so now that I am out from under them, I don't vote at all. That'll show them!
25. Voting takes so much tiiiiiiime! And I'd have to forward my work calls to my cell phone, too!
26. Everyone told me how to register, but not how to vote. What's up with that?
27. Candidates don't use social media and bullet points enough. How can I ever possibly figure out who to vote for?
Sorry, User of Excuse Number 8: I am judgmental.
If you don’t take your place at the table you will be put on the menu.
"I tried to register for the 2016 election, but it was beyond the deadline by the time I tried to do it. I hate mailing stuff; it gives me anxiety."
Young adults? Prolonged infants more like.
It isn't just young people spouting this crap. I've heard almost all of those "reasons" from people over 40, too, and it makes me even angrier. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/8bYeXoyrvj0nBqjSV5OnL0TLAYVlD4bu7UnnFbsmFHP0A4uIUfN4bFCSkSED7GQJ1Yi7U7UCsyI
The turnout numbers seem to be strong. Never mind those idiot people.
#5 #13 #26 #27. I’m sure you young people are familiar with Cliffs Notes and the like. There are similar publications for Elections. They’re called Voting Guides.
They’re put out by various organizations some are less biased than others. Read more than one.
Historically unbiased is the League of Women Voters. Hey you might even find one put out by your favorite cause.
To sort through the judicial retention vote, I use VoteforJudges.org. voteforjudges.org – Vote For Judges
To be fair, the woman in Texas is not being overly annoyed about how had it is to vote. Texas is one of the harder places to get registered to vote, and the farther you are away from being an old white person, the harder it is.
Also, +Dave Hill you currently live it the state that is both the easiest to register to vote AND actually vote, most red states do their best to keep people from
Voting for a reason.
#3
The Dems NEVER fight hard against the GOP, never have and probably never will. They are all about compromise and not doing the right thing or fighting the good fight.
That and they tend to think that once they’ve done something or compromised with the GOP that things are settled, not that they will be back again in 5 years time compromising their rights and freedoms away piece by piece.
But sadly, they are the centrist party that is left of the GOP, so they are who you have to vote for.
#11
Again, the Dems are the centrist party, think 50s GOP, there is no way they will ever be a progressive party because it’s not what the money people on Wall Street are giving the Dems money for.
But, because our stupid system forces the coalition process at the front end instead of at the back end like a civilized country, you gotta suck it up buttercup.
#12
The reason that the two major parties spend all their time and money talking to old people is because of two reasons:
1) old people have nothing better to do but be angry about things and then vote on those things. They always are the largest voting demographic.
2) young people never vote, so why waste time and money trying to convince them to until they are older and angry enough to go register and vote.
And in general, the Dems need to actually come up with something to be about. The GOP has it easy because hate and anger are really useful for getting people to vote.
Trying to convince a bunch of folks that if you want your grandchildren to live in a livable world is a very hard sell when you’ve failed to convince them that all the privileges they had when they were young were not worth maintaining for even their children.
Also, it appears that millennials have some powerful Soma and they are not willing to share it.
+Stan Pedzick I understand both points, and I am very grateful I live here, for reasons that include that one.
That said, I'm not sure which "woman in Texas" you're referring to. There's a guy from Texas, but he doesn't complain about registration. The one or #22 is in Massachusetts, and is bitching that it's easier to get a medical marijuana card than register to vote because she doesn't have a state photo ID and she can't just do it by email.
The woman complaining about how much time it takes (#25) is from Arkansas, and goes on to say she'd only take the time if it was something she was passionate about, but doesn't seem to have that passion, even though she then turns around and writes about critical issues to her, all of which are going to be affected by this election.
When I see the amount of time and effort that people do take to vote, when I see the stakes in this particular election, and when I look at what specifically these individuals are complaining about, it's hard for me to find too much sympathy for them.
+Dave Hill appears that I thought that “Tim” from Texas was a woman, apologizes.
I say it's more of a county problem Hays was pretty bad about it in 2016.
The one common theme in your reasons is a desire for perfection. And I don't know that it's exclusively limited to the young and impressionable.
At various times, certain people have in effect fallen in love with a candidate – Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, whoever – and have literally gone through heartbreak when the bloom of first love wears off and they discover that their candidate is not perfect.
If we remember that no candidate is perfect, and if we instead go for the best candidate available, we'll be a lot better off.
Of course, my political philosophy is that we're better off with 100% voter turnout (even if some vote the "wrong" way) than we are with 1% turnout where everyone agrees. Our democracy suffers in the latter scenario, as the non-voters become effective non-participants in society. Sadly, my fellow Republican Party member, the Secretary of State for Georgia, does not appear to agree.
My reason: The way I see it, politics works like this. Anal (R) or Oral (D). Each side is gonna try to convince you that one way is better than the other and that the opposition is wrong and doesn't care about you. But here's the thing, neither side cares. You're not getting Oral/Anal, you're giving Oral/Anal. You're giving it no matter who you vote for.
+D. Goyle I don't know how it varies from state to state, but, yes, even in my state there are interesting variations between by county (having both done my ballot in my county, and helped my mom with hers in an adjoining county). For example, I could electronically register to know when my mail-in ballot had arrived and been processed, but that option wasn't available to Mom.
+Dave Hill it should be all through the state, check your moms registration on the SoS site. Both Mary’s and mine are on the SoS site, but mine has my email, so I was notified by email the next day that the county had received and ran mine.
+Akagi Jack Umikaze Except in California, with its top two system, which means that many contests (such as our Senate race) are Oral/Oral, a few in some isolated areas are Anal/Anal, and you almost never can choose anything else.
+John E. Bredehoft I completely agree that high turnout is better than in principle and in the long run than smaller turnout, even if that impacts my candidates / issues. The core benefit of a democracy — the buy-in of the people by having and exercising their franchise — is stability. Voting by just one demographic group, or by only the most fanatical, leads to instability.
I also agree that the desire for perfection is a recurring note here. While not exclusive to them, I think this tends to be more of a passion among the young, who haven't yet learned the value of compromise. There's something to be said for that passion, but (he said, shouting at those kids on his lawn) it can sometimes be counter-productive.
+Stan Pedzick Interesting. I just know the instructions with my ballot gave instructions on how to get such an email notification, and the ones on hers did not.
+Dave Hill it should all be the same since they all roll up to the Secretary of State.
+Dave Hill Same thing happened to my Mother I sighed up to vote when I went to the DPS to change my address but she mailed her papers in and didn't get her license til after early voting, it was the same county. And another woman got told she couldn't vote since already voted in another country but she hadn't voted in years.
+John E. Bredehoft Moved to Texas. Use to live in California
+Akagi Jack Umikaze A certain cynicism about politics is of value. One can even cynically assert that all politicians are panderers who don't care about you, just your vote so that they can hold power and prestige.
But it is simply untrue that there's no difference or impact whether a D or R wins. It's not as great a difference or impact in some ways as I would like, but party majorities in congress, and the person in the White House, do make a difference, on a public policy level, something that impacts each of us, the environment, freedom, health, jobs, war, etc., regardless of whether all the Ds and Rs in power look more like the pigs from the final scene of Animal Farm than the rest of the animals.
So don't worry about whether Mitch McConnell and Charles Schumer are both hacks (they are). Worry about whether abortion will remain legal, whether police activities will be reined in, whether Medicare will be preserved / cut / expanded, whether we'll nuke Iran, whether we'll make any sort of effort toward curbing CO2 output.
So just pick the poison with the least lethality?
+D. Goyle When worst comes to worst, the lesser of two evils, while still evil, is less so. If a politician is indicating policies that I prefer, and especially if they have a track record of delivering, I don't need to be their bosom buddy, or wonder if they're just in it for a fancy DC office. I want results prior to paragons.
Voting legitimizes the criminal enterprise called government.
My sister's husband, who I can't really call him a Brother-In-Law because of his lazy attitude, doesn't vote because he said "There's nothing in it for me," and he's 40.
+Austin Routt But it's the only enterprise in town, and it will have an impact on you (and everyone else) whether you choose to vote or not.
+Rob Braun I'm generally a believer in voter turnout, but he sounds like someone I'm happy to have stay home. (He's also dead wrong, but …)
+Austin Routt that's one way to go ………….
Staggering
I've never had a problem voting.didnt take much time. But there is an apathy with all ages that it doesn't do any good.alot of my candidates haven't won,but that hasn't stopped me. 🇺🇸👍
what makes you so sure that I'm going to vote for someone you like
I don’t really see the point in voting in general. I mainly refer to the recent election. I’m too young to vote (1 more year), but if America loves to be “democratic”, then why does it have a democratic-socialist economy with more of an oligarchic government? I know the electoral college gives smaller states equal power as big states, but then what’s the point of voting? If it all comes down to a single person that represents your state to vote for a candidate, why bother showing what the citizens of the state want?
And even then, what’s the point of “swing states”? Why assume states will vote for the same party? Shouldn’t all states be swing states by that philosophy?
+Stan Pedzick Well, it's all registered through a county site, https://www.arapahoevotes.com/, and the email I got was so flagged. Got me, I just thought it was nifty.
https://www.arapahoevotes.com/
Your vote counts
+Gamagami I don't. But in the long term I'd rather have you voting for someone I don't like and be engaged in the system, than not.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King You show a number of misunderstandings of how the whole "voting" thing works:
1. There's a lot more to voting than just the presidential election (which goes through the electoral college filter).
2. The electoral college does not give small states the same number of votes as big states. That's the US Senate.
3. The electoral votes for a state are the sum of their House members (proportionate) and Senate (2 per state). Not just one dude voting for them.
4. By and large, the electors sent to the electoral collage for the "official" vote for President, are selected for and bound by the results of the vote in the state. This is usually winner-takes-all, but it can vary by state and a few have a different setup.
5. Because the electoral college is usually winner takes all, and the US Senate represents the entire state, "swing states" usually mean states where the margin of difference between voters in the two major parties is narrow enough that they could "swing" either D or R in those votes. (House votes would also be influenced, but they're by district.) Thus, California will certainly give its electoral votes to a Democrat, and Texas to a Republican … but Colorado could go either way, depending on the candidate and how the electorate is riled up.
6. But, again, we're talking above just about presidential and (somewhat) senatorial elections. The House, not to mention state and county and city offices, are their own thing, and also highly important.
To be honest, the system is way too confusing for me to understand. And besides, voting for a candidate doesn’t seem to matter when both sides act like toddlers and just argue all day, without getting anything done. It doesn’t seem like the candidates are going to change for the better interest of the people, let alone themselves…and people call Generation X too young to understand things.
If there’s going to be a candidate that actually has the interest of bringing the parties together, then I’ll drop my stuff and run to the nearest ballot box. But if candidates are going to drive this country further and further apart, I’m not even going to bother.
New Report: “Transplant Abuse Continues in China Despite Claims of Reform”
July 10, 2018 | By a Minghui correspondent and Annie Wu of The Epoch Times
) The China Organ Harvest Research Center (COHRC) presented its most up-to-date research results at the 27th International Congress of The Transplantation Society in Madrid, Spain, which took place from June 30 to July 5. The researchers documented their findings in a new 341-page report titled “Transplant Abuse in China Continues Despite Claims of Reform.”
A number of national news outlets in Spain and international media have covered the organ harvesting issue upon the report’s release. The new report can be found on the COHRC website at ChinaOrganHarvest.org.
David Li, a co-author of the new report, presents his team's findings at the International Congress of The Transplantation Society on July 2.
The Chinese government asserted in 2015 that it had ceased extracting organs from executed death-row prisoners and transitioned completely to ethical organ sourcing. However, international observers have raised doubt that a process that took decades in other countries could be accomplished overnight.
The authors of the report collected data on new developments in the Chinese organ donation system after 2015, analyzed hundreds of transplant hospitals, government and industry statements, official policies and legislation, actual donation figures from various regions, the abuse of brain death criteria, and the broader operation of China’s donation and transplant system. The new report concludes:
Transplants outpace donations: The number of voluntary donations in China remains extremely low relative to the size of the transplant industry. At the end of 2017, the official count of registered donors was 373,536. If one applies the ratio of registered and actual donors in the United States to this total, such a donor base would have yielded fewer than 29 organ donors for transplants in China. The sum of reported donation numbers (mainly from non-registered donors in intensive care units) in each region was also far fewer than the official figure of 15,000 transplants performed. Yet tens of thousands of transplants are performed at Chinese hospitals each year.
On-demand transplants to foreigners continue: Official Chinese statements that no transplants are performed for foreigners have been discredited by recent investigations. In October 2017, journalists from a major Korean television station found that foreign patients from other parts of Asia and the Middle East are still flocking to one of the largest transplant centers in China. Patients were quoted wait times of just days or weeks, with additional monetary “donations” to the hospital resulting in expedited surgeries.
Regulation has not kept pace with claimed reform: China’s organ donation system and regulatory framework are still in their infancy and cannot support the number of transplants being performed in China and their on-demand nature. Agencies providing oversight for the donation system remain empty shells, and most organs used for transplants do not come from the national donation and allocation system that is often presented to the international community.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/bR1ZdkgTffrilffi3rIKaJUb__sGFhhIwch0HEJJ2rIseNRKVKpuyJ0339UXAVL0cN4_blj5aQ
+Ryan M. Dupée Actually, that's the only move guaranteed to lose.
You can’t necessarily lose if you don’t vote, because you haven’t made a choice. The quote from Wargames goes more into psychology rather than the actual process. The quote in this context states that if you vote, you’re basically hoping for a candidate to win, and for the other candidate not to. If you don’t make that choice, you don’t necessarily win or lose. You simply didn’t choose, and therefore it is impossible to reach a decision for who you support or don’t.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King Frankly, I have little tolerance for folk who say "It's too complicated, it doesn't do anything, they're all the same."
If the last two years (and far longer) have proven anything, those positions are either taken by the lazy, the blindly insular, or people who have a vested interest in weakening the nation.
I never claimed that it doesn’t do anything. Nor did I claim it’s all the same. I simply said that it’s too complex for my generation to understand. To others, it may not seem that way. And the nation has been weakened since the Cold War, in my personal opinion. And trust me, no one is going to vote simply because a bunch of people pester them to. They’re going to vote out of their own volition. And unless the parties settle their differences and stop fighting one another, I’m not voting. Abraham Lincoln’s “A House Divided” quote rings true here. If the country continues to be polarized in the government, we won’t last very long as a country.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King "You can’t necessarily lose if you don’t vote, because you haven’t made a choice."
Except the choice is going to be made. You've just decided to amplify the majority vote, eliminate any political value in providing what you'd like to see in the system, and act on the assumption that the decision has already been made by the majority (true for any single individual, not necessarily true in the aggregate of individuals).
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King "I never claimed that it doesn’t do anything."
But you did say, "I don’t really see the point in voting in general."
I don't buy that it's "too complex for your generation to understand." The basic mechanics of national and state elections haven't dramatically changed, and I don't think any particular generation's IQ has dropped.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Nj3qmfk1obRmSuwxw9h6sG97jk0OBFJzbte0pc2MadXQ3Vh9X5mLqxTV6tcbyO0GDOgrViMcDQ
+Dave Hill
I’m wel above average IQ and it’s still confusing to me. Also, I perfectly explained why I didn’t see a point in voting. I described that it really seems out of place to have a democratic process in a country with an oligarchic government and a democratic-socialist economy.
+Dave Hill I think it’s too complex for Marshall to handle.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jZpaHswCR5v8AKixg7lSM3R2ouDQaw5Gy9hEhsNq4o-5r6yP6gMDp2pFS1HupW9UB59a6fmJ7A
+Linda Tewes It definitely is. Mind you, I’m not even a legal adult yet. I can’t seem to understand how it works. All I know is that your vote simply predicts the outcome of what the people want, and then the e.c. decides whether to go with or against what the state wants.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King Maybe you should pickup a copy of “Government for Dummies”.
+Linda Tewes Maybe you should stop being so juvenoic and refer me to something without insulting me.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King You plain out admitted that you’re confused. I recommend the least confusing book on how our government and the election process works and you get miffed.
Grow The Fuck Up and go to a library.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King It's difficult to believe that the concept is that difficult, since it literally is a "Government for Dummies" (or "Something every school kid in America gets taught" thing) — and everything you say about it bears no resemblance to the reality:
"All I know is that your vote simply predicts the outcome of what the people want, and then the e.c. decides whether to go with or against what the state wants."
Nothing about that is true.
+Linda Tewes I took it the wrong way, calm down. You don’t have to be ornery to a teenager because they misunderstood you. I’m sorry.
+Linda Tewes I read, too, you know. I actually read more than most people in my grade.
+Dave Hill I’m sorry, okay? If you would actually refer me to a resource like +Linda Tewes has kindly done, I wouldn’t be so defensive. I learn differently from others.
+Dave Hill Also, isn’t it quite clear that I haven’t been taught about it in school yet? If it’s so simple to understand?
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King
I’m ornery? LMAO
How do your parents respond when you jump to conclusions and over react to comments/situations?
How about apologizing for your reaction based on your misunderstanding instead of asking me to overlook your bad behavior?
+Linda Tewes I said I was sorry. I apologized because I misunderstood you.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King
Don’t talk to me until you’ve read the book. You’ve hereby been banished to the kiddie table.
+Linda Tewes Thank you for the book suggestion. I did not intend to jump to conclusions, I had believed you were insulting me, referring me to the book as a joke, but I was clearly mistaken.
+Linda Tewes You’ve got to be kidding me. Just because I haven’t been taught it in school, you guys are getting upset over a 16 year old teenager.
If this is the 40+ year old population, I’m moving to Canada.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/796112731598422016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/how-does-the-electoral-college-work.html
https://www.ducksters.com/history/us_government/electoral_college.php
https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/electoral-college/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9H3gvnN468
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/political-participation/electing-a-president/v/electoral-college
I mention once more that this is solely regarding the electoral college for presidential elections — every other election (including those today) from local school boards to US Senate is much more straightforward.
It was great fun watching Polis introduce the first First Man in the nation.
Okay, I think I kind of understand it. It’s a lot to wrap my head around, to be honest. From what I’ve read, the midterms are more important because we technically vote for the people who vote for president. They don’t affect Senate or House votes, strangely enough. Anyways, these nominees will vote for the candidate of their respective party during the actual presidential election. Is that vaguely what it is? I might have to do some deeper reading into it.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King Dude, if you are 16, you have 2 years to get up to speed.
Since the 2020 election is a Presidential election, I’d pay attention to +Dave Hill ‘s links about the electoral college.
After you read GFD, search the Internet for Voter Guides, they are the Cliffs Notes to candidates and their positions.
+Stan Pedzick Huzzah!
+Linda Tewes Thank you, I’ll make sure to do that, then. ^_^
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King
https://www.google.com/search?q=guides+for+new+voters&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#ip=1
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King
Also the outcome of local elections effect you most personally. Future candidates for state and federal offices often start here. Trump was an exception.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King "From what I’ve read, the midterms are more important because we technically vote for the people who vote for president. They don’t affect Senate or House votes, strangely enough. Anyways, these nominees will vote for the candidate of their respective party during the actual presidential election."
No, not at all.
We do not vote for electors during the midterms. We vote for electors during the presidential election years.
Who do we vote for during the midterms, then?
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King
Preparing to vote is like getting ready for the SAT or another critical exam. Don’t leave preparation until the last minute.
https://lifehacker.com/top-10-election-tools-to-turn-you-into-an-informed-vote-1787886914
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King
Your township, city, county, state, some judicial and congressional positions depending on term length. Also state and local ballot initiatives and referendum. Anything and everything except President and Vice President.
If your state or county wants to know how you feel about legalizing marijuana this is one way you can provide input.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King Everything we vote for in presidential election years except presidents.
House members have a 2 year term, so they stand for election every other year.
Senate members have 6 year terms, and are sort of staggered around, so in any biannual election, some US Senators will be up for election.
The President is elected every 4 years. The biannual years when that office is not up for election are known as mid-terms.
State offices have various terms, too, so governors and state congress reps (and county / parish commissioners, school district members, county sheriffs, judges, whatever other elected roles you have) are possibly up or a vote.
Most states have a popular referendum process as well. Such proposed laws and state constitutional amendments are also on the ballot during both mid-term and presidential election years.
Really, the only difference between midterms and presidential election years is whether the President / VP are on the ballot.
So we basically vote for the positions of people in everything except President and VP…?
And by everything, I mean positions like governor, senate, house, etc…
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King The short answer is yes. However, we aren’t replacing everyone at the same time. The “tours of duty” are staggered so that doesn’t happen. See +Dave Hill’s exploitation above.
The founders designed it this way to promote continuity and avoid major disruption in governing.
Ah, so basically we elect them in different time frames so that there’s someone in another position while one position is voted upon.
That makes sense, then.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King During the mid-terms, yes. Not everyone in every office, but any of the various sorts of offices can be up for election.
Again, it's just like any given presidential election year, except for not electing a president.
So then…who elects the president? That’s another one I’m confused about too.
+Marshall Lee The Vampire King Indirectly, the voting public, as abstracted through the way the states divide up their electoral votes — usually (though not completely) in an all or nothing fashion for each state.
(Technically, it's the college of electors, but they pretty much always vote as directed.)
So, for most states, if a majority votes for candidate X, then all of that state's electoral votes (House seats + 2) go to that candidate.
Maine and Nebraska both allocate out their electoral votes differently — by House seat votes, and two (for Senators) at large electoral votes.
There are a total of 538 electoral votes. A majority of 270 is needed to win election.
The system is a clumsy remnant of anti-democratic concerns by the Founders as well as power sharing with smaller states. Everyone wants to get rid of it, except that it would have to be done through either a Constitutional Amendment, or tweaked by cooperation of separate states (as states get control over how that gets done), and there are some arguments put forward as to why it's a good thing.
But, once more, that mechanism is only used for President/VP; all the other offices (federal, certainly) are done through popular election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College
Whelp my state is f*cked.
Your a idiot. I'm poor and mean poor and if I vote i will still be poor so mind your own business and enjoy you and all you got. Stay the he'll out mine. C U on the other side and hope your poor then asshole
+D. Goyle Yes?
+Dave Hill it is. Even if my vote didn't amount to anything I'll keep trying anyway.
+D. Goyle Your vote was your participation. That's meaningful for you.
Your vote becomes part of that's looked at by the pols and parties going forward. Winning/losing is binary in terms of immediate power, but more gradated in terms of impact. "X lost … but by only a little" / "Y won, but is weak in addressing this demographic." . "People were motivated by X to come out and vote." Those things have impact in the long term, if only indirect and difficult to see.
+Dave Hill At least it made the opposition dance a little instead of just sitting smug thinking they'll always be at the top, though I'm sure whatever promises they made will never pass I hope it invites more scrutiny from their supporters and the general public.