On March 02 2012 06:12 Aserrin wrote: I can't understand why you guys have an indirect democracy where some votes count and some don't, that's ridiculous.
huh? what do you mean: some votes count and some don't?
Your votes only count for the electors, not the president.
have the electors ever "changed" their vote? voted one way despite the people of that state voting differently? has this "change" ever influenced a presidential election?
A candidate may have more votes but if he has less electors he's fucked.
there is good reason for that: many states would not recieve practical representation if we didn't have electors. popular vote would disenfranchise more people than it would enfranchise and would give four or five states way too much power.
On March 02 2012 02:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote: It's not. That's why I don't vote.
By not voting, you are giving up the only power you have left.
Congratulations to you, and one more for team Apathy
One vote never matters much.
But - voting matters.
I have always told everyone that I know that if they don't vote, they give up any right to complain about 'the system' - because they can't be bothered to do the single easiest most powerful thing they can do.
And that's not writing a blog or complaining, but simply going to cast their vote every X years.
In addition, the fact that young people vote less than older people, that less educated vote less than more educated, that fanatics vote more than those always willing to see the other persons point of view, and the fact that the politicians are in the business of being re-elected ... they will cater to special interests, old values, the educated, etc.
If the young and poor wants more power, then they - as a group - need to realize that even if you support neither candidate, voting for better of two bad alternatives en masse, will make you a group worth catering to comes next election.
Why is Obama president? Because he won the young and the minority votes mostly. If the young and the minorities don't bother voting this upcoming election, Romney will be president - if they bother because they can be made to care, he will be president for another 4 years.
Simple fact.
He made people that otherwise wouldn't bother - bother, and go out voting. So he won. Not because he convinced a majority of those that vote every election ...
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Why does it matter how you vote when either party is as corrupt as the other one. An average person cant lobby to have a new law passed in the USA, but a major corporation can write their own bills and pay an elected official to have it presented to the house. Until crap like that is dealt with, the party you vote for is of less importance.
Im canadian and I vote, and its incredibly disheartening. I live in a purely conservative province, and i lean conservative, however because the province has never had more than 1 non conservative riding in 25years, the party does whatever the fuck it wants with no regard for the average person. There is no alternative, the other 2 (3 if you include the newly popular wildrose(who are crazy as shit)) dont even bother compaigning here anymore, as they cannot win.
All voting does is decide which party is going to make bank for the next 4 years. Also why is so much placed on presidential elections in the USA? the president has very little real power compared to like, the PM of Canada, bills and laws have to go through the senate or congress or whatever right? Yet i never see anyone discuss or post anything or see any news on senatorial elections. I dont really understand that part works in the USA and i dont really care cause i dont live there, but shouldnt people pay more attention to that instead of who the figurehead of a party is?
IMO minority governments are the best for a country, as it stops the ruling party from doing insane things with no opposition. The only time I agree with a majority is if you need it to fix the mistakes that the last majority party implemented during there stay.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
On March 02 2012 06:00 Excomm wrote: Your vote counts the same as any other individual in the US. It doesn't matter how much money they have or how educated they are. The only reason not to vote is if you are 100% apathetic about all of the candidates and would be fine with every single policy in thier campaign platforms.
Just because Congress doesn't do anything it isn't paid for (and then still doesn't do anything) doesn't mean your vote counts any less.
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
Actually votes do not count the same, and I will explain why (it is the reason that I do not believe in voting):
Basically smaller states have a lot more weight to their votes than larger states. This is because the amount of points that states have in the electoral college is based off of both population as well as two points for every states two seats in the senate For large states like CA these two extra points do not mean very much. Instead of 53 points based on only population they have they have 55. Smaller states however that would only have 1 point from population instead gain an extra 2 points making a total of 3. This is 300% of what they would have if the system was based solely on population. This means that even though a state like Wyoming (population: 600,000) may have 1/60 the population that CA (population: 38,000,000) does they have more than 1/20 of the voting power. This means that every citizen of wyoming has 3 times as much say as a voter in CA.
When I first learned about this from my American Politics professor in university I remember the actual proportion being something more along the lines the vote of a CA citizen being about 1/10 of that of a citizen from one of the smaller states (I do not remember which one). The system is far from fair.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them.
I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes.
Money for research = good.
Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad.
On March 02 2012 06:00 Excomm wrote: Your vote counts the same as any other individual in the US. It doesn't matter how much money they have or how educated they are. The only reason not to vote is if you are 100% apathetic about all of the candidates and would be fine with every single policy in thier campaign platforms.
Just because Congress doesn't do anything it isn't paid for (and then still doesn't do anything) doesn't mean your vote counts any less.
Actually votes do not count the same, and I will explain why (it is the reason that I do not believe in voting):
Basically smaller states have a lot more weight to their votes than larger states. This is because the amount of points that states have in the electoral college is based off of both population as well as two points for every states two seats in the senate For large states like CA these two extra points do not mean very much. Instead of 53 points based on only population they have they have 55. Smaller states however that would only have 1 point from population instead gain an extra 2 points making a total of 3. This is 300% of what they would have if the system was based solely on population. This means that even though a state like Wyoming (population: 600,000) may have 1/60 the population that CA (population: 38,000,000) does they have more than 1/20 of the voting power. This means that every citizen of wyoming has 3 times as much say as a voter in CA.
When I first learned about this from my American Politics professor in university I remember the actual proportion being something more along the lines the vote of a CA citizen being about 1/10 of that of a citizen from one of the smaller states (I do not remember which one). The system is far from fair.
This is the correct way to criticize the electoral college. It favors small states, not large ones.
But your criticism is done in a vacuum. Realize that the increased power of the small states is counter balanced by large states being much more lucrative to campaign in. I think it ends up being close to a wash, especially because conflict between general vote and electoral vote is very very rare (win general- lose electoral for ex.)
here is a short video of a guy who used to work for fox -business- news (you'll see why he got fired...), who sums up my views.... the parties are really just the same.
If you think the two party system in America is awful then you could at least vote for one of the minor parties, if nothing else than just to screw with Democrats and Republicans. Doesn't matter if you vote for the green party or the communists or the nazis, voting for any of the minor parties makes it more likely that one of them will become big enough to have an effect on the two party system. Basically the more political parties there are that can actually affect things the more likely it is that one of them will align with your views, thereby giving you a purpose to vote. Whether it seems like it or not your vote actually does count for something (a miniscule percentage, dependent on what kind of election it is of course), you may as well get the most out of that as you can.
By the way this is probably a good place to bring up the alternative vote system that Britain (might just have been England, but it was probably all of Britain) voted on whether to switch to. Basically you would get to vote for your first preference, if they don't have a chance to win the vote goes to your second preference, and so on for however many preferences you choose. I feel like it would make democracy far more representative of people's actual views compared to what America, and other democracies, currently has.
On March 02 2012 06:12 Aserrin wrote: I can't understand why you guys have an indirect democracy where some votes count and some don't, that's ridiculous.
huh? what do you mean: some votes count and some don't?
Your votes only count for the electors, not the president.
have the electors ever "changed" their vote? voted one way despite the people of that state voting differently? has this "change" ever influenced a presidential election?
A candidate may have more votes but if he has less electors he's fucked.
there is good reason for that: many states would not recieve practical representation if we didn't have electors. popular vote would disenfranchise more people than it would enfranchise and would give four or five states way too much power.
Or we could just go to a national vote and disregard separating results by state
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
it is not directly proportional to the population.
Or we could just go to a national vote and disregard separating results by state
which would mean that a candidate only has to carry a few states to win, and doing more than the barest minimum of campaigning in a state like wyoming would be harmful to your chances of winning. basically, you would make it so carrying the top fifteen states means you win the election. which would encourage politicians to ignore the needs of the smaller states and overemphasise the needs of the larger states.
On March 02 2012 04:46 stokes17 wrote: [quote] Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them.
I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes.
Money for research = good.
Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad.
dood either have a thread on elections or have a thread on lobbying in the policy making process
its impossible to discuss both simultaneously
And no there are not tons of loopholes (b4 citizens united), some, but not as rampant as you are implying. Every candidate before Obama took public funding for his presidential campaign.
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
it is not directly proportional to the population.
yea, its skewed to empower small states.... hence your statement made no sense
On March 02 2012 02:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote: It's not. That's why I don't vote.
By not voting, you are giving up the only power you have left.
Congratulations to you, and one more for team Apathy
One vote never matters much.
But - voting matters.
I have always told everyone that I know that if they don't vote, they give up any right to complain about 'the system' - because they can't be bothered to do the single easiest most powerful thing they can do.
And that's not writing a blog or complaining, but simply going to cast their vote every X years.
In addition, the fact that young people vote less than older people, that less educated vote less than more educated, that fanatics vote more than those always willing to see the other persons point of view, and the fact that the politicians are in the business of being re-elected ... they will cater to special interests, old values, the educated, etc.
If the young and poor wants more power, then they - as a group - need to realize that even if you support neither candidate, voting for better of two bad alternatives en masse, will make you a group worth catering to comes next election.
Why is Obama president? Because he won the young and the minority votes mostly. If the young and the minorities don't bother voting this upcoming election, Romney will be president - if they bother because they can be made to care, he will be president for another 4 years.
Simple fact.
He made people that otherwise wouldn't bother - bother, and go out voting. So he won. Not because he convinced a majority of those that vote every election ...
^^ Exactly how I feel about it. Yeah so one vote doesn't count for much, but if you don't vote, you're basically agreeing with whatever is happening, because even if you can't change it alone, you are doing nothing about it.
Things aren't going to change themselves, and whether or not your one vote does much really shouldn't matter! You should do it for yourself, as the saying goes "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
If you honestly don't care or are pleased with current policies, then don't vote, but I hate talking to people that are always complaining about the status quo, and then when asked if they voted they ALWAYS respond "No, my vote means nothing." Well it certainly does now, and so does your opinion to me
On March 02 2012 06:38 Bout2plucku wrote: here is a short video of a guy who used to work for fox news (you'll see why he got fired...), who sums up my views.... the parties are really just the same.
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
it is not directly proportional to the population.
yea, its skewed to empower small states.... hence your statement made no sense
exactly, so eliminating the electoral college would then take away that empowerment of the smaller states... if the electoral college empowers the smaller states more than they "proportionally deserve" than eliminating it would unempower(?) them
On March 02 2012 04:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them.
I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes.
Money for research = good.
Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad.
dood either have a thread on elections or have a thread on lobbying in the policy making process
its impossible to discuss both simultaneously
And no there are not tons of loopholes (b4 citizens united), some, but not as rampant as you are implying. Every candidate before Obama took public funding for his presidential campaign.
Man, I'm just going where the flow takes me
Yes, every candidate takes money, which is kind of my point. Their election depends on their funding. They have to answer to the wealthy who are paying them. In return for their funding, whoever gave them the money will influence their policies in ways which serve the wealthy.
EPT
) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
