Right Not to Vote?

Right Not to Vote is a well written article - and thank you for the time you took to respond. For clarity, I would like to say that I am not making the argument that the non-voters, rather than the illegal immigrants, are to blame for this country's woes…I don't think the illegal immigrants have that much to do with it. The point I was striving to make was the ability for people to become worked up over so many "smoke-screen" issues when there is a bigger, more fundamental one at hand.

I absolutely agree with Mr. Siren that living in a free country means having the right not to vote…but I can't believe that the majority of non-voters are consciously exercising that right as a protest against the establishment. I stand by my theory that the majority of non-voters are not doing so due to ignorance, laziness, or an inability to get to the polls.

Mr. Siren cites having "anti" rights: he is, by default, awarded by the Constitution the right not to practice religion, peaceably assemble, or bear arms. This non-right argument extends to his right not to vote. Theoretically, yes. The problem is that when Mr. Siren exercises his right not to practice religion, it doesn't affect me one bit…but when he and his compatriots decide not to vote, all of a sudden the consequences change for all of us.

I agree that if every single person in this country were to cease voting, our government would crumble. I also posit that if every single person were to vote, then our government would become more the Republic it was meant to be and less the oligarchy that both Mr. Siren and I describe. Call it a case of viewing the glass half empty versus half full.

I am also exhausted with the current choices available in our two-party system: there is quite a bit of change that needs to take place. Campaign reform, grassroots movements, and perhaps even the introduction of two different parties in the two-party system are all in order. The involvement of people like Mr. Siren and I in our local caucuses will help facilitate this revolution. By utilizing the latter strategy, we will make our voices heard before the candidates have been dry-cleaned and pressed, ready to be presented to the American people.

Profound intra-party change can happen: polarization within the parties can cause factions and the threat of losing potential voters can lead to a re-hashing of ideals or else a decision to not let the door hit them in the rear as they are on their way out. Just look at the Dixie Democrats during the Civil Rights movement.

In the end, I suppose I agree with Mr. Siren on quite a few things - just not the way we should go about getting there.