Your Vote Doesn't Mean Shit

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. 

Shh.. you wouldn't want disenchanted voters to learn that there is no reason for them not to start voting 3rd party...

http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple. http://www.slate.com/id/2107240/

Even in one of the closest presidential elections in history, such as the 2000 election, your single vote would not have made a difference.  Voting for the lesser of two evils because you think you can sway the election is *STUPID*.  You would have a better chance of winning the lottery multiple times in a row.  A vote for a 'lesser of two evils' candidate is a wasted vote, pure and simple.

>>1
No shit sherlock. How many of these retarded threads are we going to have?

The point of voting is collective, everyone does their bit. If you can't be botherredto do your bit, fine don't vote, I don't give a fuck.

>>4
It isn't necessarilly collective.  You can always go vote for the candidate you want just as an easy way of showing your support for them.  It isn't necessarilly to win.  Many people do things to show support for a given policy, not necessarilly to win, but sometimes just to show support for it.  This is why you should always vote for your favorite candidate, without exception.  If you ARE going to vote, you as an individual simply don't have any reason not to do it.

Since a canidate has to win by a certian amount every vote does count you big dip.

>>5
Oh I'm sorry, did mentionning the word "collective" soften your hard on?

collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective collective

Ok I am Captain Collective here to fill the political arena with mentions of collectives almost as if the individual doesn't exist! Because you can only ever have one or the other. Don't forget social collectives. They are collectives, which are SOCIAL. Best not to be anti-social, it is bad.

fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89)

fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89) fgtyhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytrefffffffffffffffffffffffffFFFFFft2 76567ffffffffffffghj8uytRYTRtg               uiUHYGTFdfghuiuytrfdftgYhuIo  iUytRrtYhujiop987654Erftgyhu89)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH
ketchup

>>8
>>9

Dad used to tell me that when I was little.

>>1
Your shit doesn't mean vote!

>>1
Your shit doesn't mean don't vote!

true, but what if everyone believed that? then it really would make a difference. one vote doesn't make a difference, but voting is still a civil responsibility because if nobody did it, the country would be even worse off.