” Wider agreement that it’s moral to vote than it is moral to vote for Obama over McCain. That this is true is a sign of the moral weakness of the Republic”

Are you of the opinion that the author and commenters who wrote these are just exaggerating for effect, that none of them really mean it? That would be some comfort, I guess.

Are you concerned that they’re jumping the gun? I agree, we can’t be sure how bad McCain would be just from what he says and what he’s done. He could be lying. We should give him the benefit of the doubt to some extent.

Is it a moral failure to vote for McCain because you believe he isn’t at all the way he portrays himself? Maybe not.

With only 2 exceptions, students should have just as easy a time registering and voting at their permanent home addresses as anyone else; the complexities seem entirely related to their temporary-residence status. And students are the only category of people seeking temporary-residence voting status in large enough numbers to be of interest to anyone.

Those two exceptions are MI and TN, where

first-time voters who register by mail are required to vote in person, making absentee voting impossible for students attending distant schools to vote in their hometowns.

That clearly is a big hurdle, though it’s not singling out students per se.

One other, smaller, category that might be impaired is younger students, if their state has in-person registration or confirmation requirements (though unlike the MI/TN situation it could be corrected the first time the student is home after reaching their 18th birthday.) Does anyone know if this situation actually occurs anywhere? Here in WA you can do a mail-only registration as long as you can supply a WA drivers license, WA ID card, or social security number.

Action counts.

If you want to claim that the views of those who don’t vote are completely different from those who do, go ahead—with some actual cites. Until there, there’s nothing unreasonable about using the presidential vote figures as a very quick-and-dirty proxy for the views of the population as a whole. To boringly repeat myself, both the percentage figures and the swaps between R and D presidents show some kind of rough political parity.

And no, I wouldn’t characterize “expressing a concern about possible future harm” as “panicking”.

I am of the opinion that you are panicking about what was written.

If I tell you that X is a moral requirement and people don’t do it that does not mean that they’re beyond redemption, especially given that all people may not understand my reasons or arguments.

Further, I don’t think the sanctions proposed for offenders – were there any? – extend to violence.

Your “half the people” formula is somewhat ridiculous as Bush’s last vote total was 62,040,606.

voting … for Obama/Biden … is pretty close to a moral requirement

There’s really just the media and you, the universities, between civilization and chaos

I have been disturbed lately by how few people I know seem to see a vote for John McCain as a moral wrong

Wider agreement that it’s moral to vote than it is moral to vote for Obama over McCain. That this is true is a sign of the moral weakness of the Republic

Are you of the opinion that the author and commenters who wrote these are just exaggerating for effect, that none of them really mean it? That would be some comfort, I guess.

It is fine, though, to reveal one’s political opinions in class; but, if you think your opinions are likely to be widely shared, I think you have an obligation to figure out how not to alienate those who do not share them. In my experience right wing students do not feel oppressed by left wing professors, but they do find the self-righteous dismissal of their (often unrefelective) peers irritating. I have some fellow feeling for them—my entire undergraduate and graduate years were spent in institutions wth very right wing student bodies.

That said, I tend not to reveal my political opinions in large format classes. So much so that after the last Presidential election I recieved a vicious piece of hate email from one of my students who was furious about the election result and believed that I would be pleased by it. But I suspect that says more about the inattentiveness of said student than my classroom behaviour.

Who thinks this?

Ok, right, it’s Nixon’s public performance that I am concerned about here, and think compares favorably to today’s tendency to demonize our political opponents. Maybe it’s just me; maybe all our current “not my president” or “hey, those are our jets now” stuff doesn’t bother anybody else at all.

But I do think they are signs, small though they might be, of a disintegrating body politic. The fact that so many don’t seem contented with disagreeing with their domestic political opponents, and hopefully winning elections against them, is very troubling. If we really do consider the other half of the country to be immoral and evil, or feel the need to posture that way even if we don’t actually feel that way, then yes indeed it is a movement in a dangerous direction.

True, but perhaps not a surprising or terribly problematic conclusion. Everyone’s a consequentialist in theory, but everybody’s a deontologist in practice. (Much like everyone’s a moral relativist in theory, but a doctrinaire zealot in practice.)

This is a simple case of switching ethical approaches when it is convenient. On this issue, since it concerns participation in a so-called democracy that falls somewhere between irremediably dysfunctional and purely virtual, I see no point in quibbling about such inconsistency.

This is one of the more popular myths of the Republican party.

Although Nixon did not publicly call for a recount. The Replublican Party, with Nixon’s private support, filed challenges in 11 different states. They would have needed to succeed in both Illinois and in Texas or in various combinations of three or more states to change the outcome. Instead, all of the challenges failed.

Versus “we’re headed for civil war” I didn’t feel I needed to try too hard.