VOTING SHMOTING...

     If you don't vote, you lose the right to complain. See, I don't understand that line of reasoning. How is that even possible? Does not voting somehow negate my rights as a US citizen under the Constitution? No, of course not. You can't even vote until you're both 18 and registered and there are numerous ways to lose that right but regardless of whether you vote or not (or can't), your rights under the First Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

     ...are in no way affected, not to mention any of the other rights afforded to you as a citizen. Whether I vote or not, I am still allowed to petition the government and peaceably assemble. Those are not voter's rights, those are US citizen rights.
     Voting may have gotten those men and women into office but it doesn't preclude the citizenry from complaining about them (or praising them as the case may be...or have I "lost" that right too by not voting?).

     Another reason that argument is bullshit is because only white, land-owning males were allowed to vote originally. That's a whole lotta people with no say in who may or may not represent them. Were the multitudes of disenfranchised from the late 18th to mid-20th century admonished for complaining about a government they did not vote for?
     Their voices may not have been appreciated (especially I would gather from blacks and women), but they were still entitled to their free speech, free presses, to peaceably assemble, and to write the government about wrongs they feel have been committed.

     I'm pretty sure the only thing you lose by not voting is the ability to say you voted for that particular person or proposition.

     By extension, I wonder if anyone has done any research on those who didn't vote. Like, during the day of an election or just before, has a suitably done poll of people who were definitely not voting ever been conducted to see whom they would've voted for if they could've been bothered to go to a polling station?
     If so, did the acquired results, if tabulated as actual votes, ever affect the outcome of an election? I have this feeling their missing votes would not change anything. Without any evidence (mind you) to support my opinion, I feel the collective opinion of those who don't vote will closely match the collective opinion of those who did vote.

     I say this because there are no longer any deliberately disenfranchised voters in this country anymore. Women have the vote. Blacks have the vote. Anyone who's 18 and older and a US citizen may vote.
     Arguably the only disenfranchised population are felons. Whether convicted or not, and especially those who have been released, I don't see why committing a crime ought to cause one's right to vote to be revoked. Criminals may not be desirable but they are still citizens, right?
     But that's a different argument. My concern here would be are there enough legally disenfranchised people that, if their votes could be cast, would they be able to affect the outcome of an election? I'm guessing had the United States had full suffrage for all citizens back at the Constitution's signing, our line-up of Presidents would likely be very different today.

     I don't know. That's not much of argument and it's certainly not well-supported, but it's something to perhaps start a conversation...