[Mulder]

If Cheney sat out an election, then yes, my respect for him just went down. Apathy is one of the most dangerous behaviors to freedom.

Actually, he sat out 14 elections (out of 16 possible) when he was registered to vote in Texas.

I used to begrudge folks for not voting, but I've changed my mind.

The chances of one vote making the difference in an election are smaller than the chances of getting struck by lighting. A single vote is statistically inconsequential. And this is even before you consider that many people vote illegally, cancelling out your vote.

So if folks have something better to do on election day, I don't blame them for not voting.

Also, there is a large number of people who don't vote because they believe that by voting they endorse a corrupt and fraudulent process. I don't blame them either. I might even wind up doing the same thing.

But you're correct about "apathy [being].... dangerous.... to freedom". I just don't necessarily equate apathy to not voting, as many people who don't vote are not apathetic and many who do vote are very apathetic.

[ninenot]

Well--it's a mixed bag on 'one vote.'

The 'one vote' actually makes a difference on local and on many State elections--but statistically, that's no surprise.

Unfortunately in the National elections, the Democrats are able to resurrect so many dead bodies, and double-vote so many students (once at college, once at home) and registr so many people who live at addresses occupied by Dumptsters--that in Wisconsin, e.g., Bush "lost" the State by 5,000 votes. Same-o for Iowa.

It is simply not true that Bush lost--if the voting was accurate. We simply didn't have the necessary dead-body power.