Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting

Con Voting Is Always Better Than Not Voting. My opponent states that he doesn't need to prove that: " voting is "the best thing you can do" nor that our electoral system is perfect. I only need to prove that voting is BETTER than not-voting." That's really not correct he must prove that voting is ALWAYS better than not voting. While I contend that voting is not ALWAYS better than not voting. We know this because we can read the debate issue before us. I do agree as has been stated that "most of the time it's better to vote than not to vote." That is not contrary to my contention that it's not always better to vote. For example if an election were held where both candidates were bigots I'm not served well by voting for either candidate. If my candidate is a minor party who hasn't met the requirements by local election law in shouldn't have to vote for someone else. My opponent has failed to make his case except to state his personal opinion. No one can or should dictate to someone else that he must vote. If there exists no real choice in voting then common sense compels us to realize that not voting is our right. My opponent believes apparently that underlining and Capitalizing make is argument stronger somehow but I feel that my arguments stand on their own. I don't need to vote to be a patriot, in fact I'm more of a patriot because I'm being true to my beliefs and not selling out. I would ask that you read our facts and presentation of our arguments and make your decision based upon thoughtful reflection. I never said that ignorant people shouldn't vote merely that they do vote. Perhaps if only informed people thoughtfully voted we would have better results. He likes to jump to conclusions and make untrue accusations but the truth is that many people don't know who they're voting for and yet they vote. I don't see how that produces good results. My opponent stated that "You could be a young American voter in 2007 considering whether or not to vote. You know that you are worried about student debt, the war in Iraq, and health care. Therefore, you vote for Obama because he campaigned on the issues you care about." I agree if you have a candidate that you like you should vote for him. But don't ask me to vote if I don't agree with those issues. In essence he's saying that I should vote whether I like it or not. I have said that encouraging ignorant voters to vote without educating them is wrong. If 100% of the people vote in Russia or China did they really accomplish anything ? I think not, in fact not voting maybe actually more valuable. It doesn't take any courage to slap on your "I voted" sticker to prove you did something. My opponent uses the case of Florida in 2000 to show why it's so important to vote. I don't live in a Florida, I live in New York. The last time a Conservative carried New York was probably before most of you were born. If I know that by voting my vote is a waste then I will choose not to vote. The fact is that if a state goes to one candidate by a single vote he gets 100% of the electoral votes which is how we elect our Presidents. My opponent says that voters work "in concert with fellow voters, like voters in the same political party, to achieve a certain objective on election day." That's a good analogy, but the song they're singing is the same old out of tune melody. I don't want to listen to it anymore and I don't care for their singing. My opponent is good and tearing down others but short on proving his argument. I was hoping to hear a litany of positives for having voted and yet I didn't. Then my opponent states "I"ll provide some evidence. According to the Tampa Bay Time"s Pulitzer Prize winning Fact-Checking project PolitiFact, Obama has met 70% of his campaign promises so far. <http://www.politifact.com......; Obama, love him or hate him, was reelected in 2012 because he"s kept most of his 2008 promises, not because people are stupid." Obama's promises have crippled this country. He has driven our debt to unsustainable heights. The fact that Obama has kept his promises is not a selling point. He's the most unethical and dishonest president who makes Nixon look like a boy scout. He was re elected in 2012 because he got herds of ignorant uninformed voters to vote for him. Not that Romney would have been better. That's kind of my point, our system is broken and just continuing to vote and slap on our voting sticker isn't helping. My opponent says: "Electoral College: This is off-topic." I don't see how the way that we elect our president should be off topic. The fact is that if you're from 10 or so states your vote counts. The other 40 states don't depending on who your candidate is. If your from Ohio or Florida your vote means something. If you're a liberal in Texas or a Conservative in Massachusetts it doesn't period. I have stated that : "Our political candidates are picked by monied interests ." My opponent wants to argue that isn't true. After laughing heartily I restate my point. It costs one Billion dollars to run for president. That's not coming from yours and my contributions. Just because my view is cynical doesn't mean its wrong. My opponent says: "Voting for a third party candidate allows constituents to make a profound statement regarding their dissatisfactions with the platforms of both of the candidates that might be elected." I agree but what if there is no third party candidate or mine wasn't allowed in the race ? I'm not going to vote for the same side of the same coin. I would contend that we don't really live in a democracy. Both parties are bought and paid for and except at the margins aren't that dissimilar. So I disagree with my opponent who says: "As citizens of a democracy, it is our responsibility to add our voices so we are represented in our government." That's what it should be but unfortunately our political system has been hijacked and has left us for the past nearly thirty years. Perhaps if we had major election reform then we could get back to a more fair system. But whether you agree with me or not that's not the issue. The issue is again as stated: "voting is always better than not voting" For Pro to win he has to prove that is the case. For Con to win I merely have to prove that it's not always the case. Well sitting here in New York as a conservative voting for president since 1992 it's been Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama and Obama and in 2016 it'll be another Clinton in all likelihood. Since I can't afford to move then I'm stuck. I think this proves my case.