|
On March 02 2012 06:34 slam wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:32 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: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.
This is by design as part of the checks and balances system such that states with overwhelming population advantages cannot dictate national policy without an equally voiced opinion from the minority (smaller states). Without the Senate, nearly all federal funding would go to New York, California, Texas and Florida which have huge populations compared to other states. You vote for the senator of your state counts just as much as any other person from you state. Your vote is equal in value to every other US citizen.
|
On March 02 2012 06:56 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:53 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:49 3Form wrote:
Even if you don't vote for any candidate, you should still go and spoil you ballot paper.
If you don't go to the polling station, they'll dismiss you as apathetic. They'll say "people just don't care about politics."
However, if you spoil your ballot paper, if thousands of others spoil their ballot papers, they cannot just dismiss it as apathy. They will have to acknowledge you.
Take 60% turnout. If half of those that didn't vote had gone and spoiled their papers instead, then a full quarter of all papers would have been spoiled. This would seriously undermine the so called democratic legitimacy of our politicians. It would be a step in the right direction. People will use the fact that I don't vote to discredit any opinion I have on government. Like I've said several times already, my opinions that I voiced are 100% unchanged and unaltered regardless of who I vote for and who wins. If you don't listen to what I've said because I don't vote, you're not addressing any of the content of what I've said, and we would never have a dialogue regardless of whether I voted. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me that money isn't king in US policy making. dude you are just not well informed on election finance if you can't separate campaign finance from lobbying in Washington. Money alone will not get you elected. Nor will money alone make you effective lobbyist.
It is the single biggest factor.
|
On March 02 2012 06:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:19 Aserrin wrote:On March 02 2012 06:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: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?
I think you don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm critizising indirect democracy because it's indirect, and people defending it as if it's TRUE democracy is ridiculous. You can't work your words around that.
|
|
|
On March 02 2012 06:59 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:53 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:46 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:40 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:28 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:39 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:20 stokes17 wrote:
[quote]
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. you're going in circles, the majority of funding comes from small donors. Your cynical view of lobbying (while accurate) doesn't apply to campaign finance (not counting citizens united). Yes many large donors currently spend 10-50K dollars to go to a special Obama Event and see him eat dinner and maybe shake his hand. Those people have 0 influence in policy making. I don't see where I'm being circular. Events like that are exactly what I'm talking about. Candidates get their money from the super-wealthy. In turn, the super-wealthy have their investment pay off when candidate is elected, and passes policy that is favorable to those who gave them money.
yea that's a baseless claim. Me paying my 50k to shake Obama's hand buys me no influence. I am just showing my support making an effort in the best way i can. (anyone how has 50k lying around is probably too busy to on the ground campaign) You really think 50k gets me Obama's ear? 50k puts him in my pocket? NO, that's why he takes 50k from 100 people. Those people get a handshake, a story, and a fulfilled sense of civic duty. They do not get to secretly run the country.
Lobbyists have influence for a number of reasons, one of which is money. But for the hundredth time, campaign contributions=/=lobbying
|
On March 02 2012 06:59 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:48 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:41 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:39 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:32 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: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 well no, going from current electorate to general vote only would give every person an equal voice... it would not make small states negligible, it would make them equal because where you live has no bearing. it would eliminate the need for candidates to campaign in smaller states where the population is so small that a majority would not affect the election. states like wyoming make up <.2% of the population (i believe). no candidate would spend any money at all in those states, or would spend the bare minimum. presidents would not have to worry about favoring more populated states over less populated states. the least populated states would be 100% neglected because their voters would have no practical say in any election. no 1 campaigns in small non swing states as is. So yes in that way getting rid of the electoral college would weaken small states, because the would lose the boost the electorate gives them. But state lines would have no bearing in a general only election. People would just campaign in dense areas. Either way, with a general vote system, you can't say 1 vote is negligible compared to another, because geography is irrelevant.
exactly, people would campaign in dense population areas, and would be able to totally neglect more rural and less populated states and areas. the fact is that you can't say that 1 vote is negligible in either system, but the electoral college gives the citizens of the states more equal power (by limiting the power of larger states and raising the value of smaller states).
the democratic party generally carries larger states (population-wise) and more populated areas. the republican party generally carries smaller states and less populated areas. so, the republican party would take a BIG hit if you eliminated the electoral college.
|
I vote because I live in america and i'm proud to be an american cause at least I know I'm free and I won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me.
|
On March 02 2012 03:04 Uranium wrote:
I came to the conclusion that I wasn't going to vote this year. At first, I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but after seeing how he's completely sold out in his bid for the Republican party, I've given up.
He had to become a staunch bible-thumping anti-abortionist to even be considered as a "real" Republican candidate
Please find any videos, statements, articles, or other evidence to back up your claim that Ron Paul is some kind of sellout 'staunch bible-thumping anti-abortionist'.
This is completely misguided conclusion and false on the face of it.
A) Ron Paul is in the Republican party only because the two major political parties have hi-jacked the system and locked out any serious competition from any other parties.
They have control over the debates, the rules for getting on the ballot, the legal system, and the media that makes any third party run ridiculously expensive, nearly impossible to jump through all of the hoops and roadblocks set up to stop you, and guanteed almost zero corporate media coverage.
This is why. He can only be within the system, to have any chance of saving the system.
B) Ron Paul never uses his religeous faith to 'bible thump', or makes an issue out of it in any way.
In fact, of all the candidates I can think of in memory - I can't ever recall a speech, statement, or in anywhere in his voting record where he wore his personal faith on his sleeve to pander for votes, or used it as the justification for any policy position.
To the contrary: On all of the current Republian hot-button social issues - abortion, contraception, gay marriage or marriage issue of any kind ... etc ... he has always taken the same position:
- The government - especially the US federal government - has no moral or legal authority on these things
- In a free society - and under the Constituion - most of these things are properly left to the individual, the church, or private instituions to handle
- In cases where the people think a law, regulation, or intervention is required - then this is handled on an individual state level.
C) Ron Paul is a medical OBGYN doctor that has delivered over 4000 babies. He has never performed an abortion.
And - I would think obviously - beyond any personal moral or religeous conviction - therefore it would be understandable that he would be personally anti-abortion.
But refer back to my response B) above.
This is a State issue. Under the Constitution as ratified, this is where it belongs.
Ron Paul is one of the only people out there that is on our side.
Ron Paul is the only one of these candidates that we can even remotely trust.
Ron Paul is standing up against the entire establishment, and telling the American people the truth about things that the establisment doesn't what use to hear.
People that take the time to understand what he's talking about, tend to be fervent supporters for life because he's generally right about everything he says, and can be counted on to follow through on it.
But if people are too intellectually lazy - or too politically programmmed and narrow minded - or just plain too dense (all of which covers a large portion of the American public) to understand what he's actually saying ...
... then no, they dont get it.
|
On March 02 2012 07:03 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:59 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:53 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:46 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:40 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:28 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:39 stokes17 wrote:On March 02 2012 05:28 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
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. you're going in circles, the majority of funding comes from small donors. Your cynical view of lobbying (while accurate) doesn't apply to campaign finance (not counting citizens united). Yes many large donors currently spend 10-50K dollars to go to a special Obama Event and see him eat dinner and maybe shake his hand. Those people have 0 influence in policy making. I don't see where I'm being circular. Events like that are exactly what I'm talking about. Candidates get their money from the super-wealthy. In turn, the super-wealthy have their investment pay off when candidate is elected, and passes policy that is favorable to those who gave them money. yea that's a baseless claim. Me paying my 50k to shake Obama's hand buys me no influence. I am just showing my support making an effort in the best way i can. (anyone how has 50k lying around is probably too busy to on the ground campaign) You really think 50k gets me Obama's ear? 50k puts him in my pocket? NO, that's why he takes 50k from 100 people. Those people get a handshake, a story, and a fulfilled sense of civic duty. They do not get to secretly run the country. Lobbyists have influence for a number of reasons, one of which is money. But for the hundredth time, campaign contributions=/=lobbying
I don't think its baseless. If you're giving 50k to Obama, its because his policies coincide with yours, and you benefit from them. If his policies were contrary to what I wanted, wtf would I be doing giving him 50k?
|
On March 02 2012 07:01 Aserrin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 06:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:19 Aserrin wrote:On March 02 2012 06:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm critizising indirect democracy because it's indirect, and people defending it as if it's TRUE democracy is ridiculous. You can't work your words around that.
i understood that that was your point. my point is that the electoral college system more accurately represents the will of the people than a direct democracy would. a direct democracy would give larger states too much influence and power to the exclusion of the smaller states.
and your OP was: "some votes count and some don't."
which is absolutely untrue.
|
On March 02 2012 07:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 07:01 Aserrin wrote:On March 02 2012 06:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 02 2012 06:19 Aserrin wrote:On March 02 2012 06:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: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? I think you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm critizising indirect democracy because it's indirect, and people defending it as if it's TRUE democracy is ridiculous. You can't work your words around that. i understood that that was your point. my point is that the electoral college system more accurately represents the will of the people than a direct democracy would. a direct democracy would give larger states too much influence and power to the exclusion of the smaller states.
You're still looking at it the wrong way. Your views on democracy are completely broken. What you propose is a 'state-cracy' or something like that.
'oh no they will make campaign in the more populated areas disregarding the smaller states'.
So? Campaign doesn't make the people have more or less power, everyone has the right to vote and everyone has the right to have their vote have the same value as everyone else's.
On March 02 2012 07:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
and your OP was: "some votes count and some don't."
which is absolutely untrue.
Yes, my statement was wrong.
Still, some votes count more than others. That isn't democracy, no matter how hard you try to work your words around it (bis). It isn't equality either. It's just half-assing things through arbitrary things. Wherever anyone comes from is inconsequential with democracy. If anyone thinks of each other as a citizen from a state instead of a citizen from a country, it doesn't matter. When you vote in a democracy, you vote for your country as a citizen. You don't get more or less power depending on the state you're from.
I could say it would be better for people to have more value in their votes depending on their social circles, because one also thinks of himself as a citizen in a social circle, and campaigns attack social groups differently. I could use your rethoric to try to work around it, but it doesn't matter, because in a democracy, one gets the same power as every other citizen to decide, because you're a citizen.
|
I believe every vote counts and everyone should vote.
Even if your vote doesn't "count" in the sense that someone doesn't win by a 1 vote margin, you still have given your input on who is the better candidate. There's a difference between winning say, 50-2 than 50-40. I'm sure even if the candidate won, but the votes were close, that would give them pressure to go and see why people are voting for the other party.
|
On March 02 2012 02:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Only considering national elections. President, senator, etc.
I live in the USA, and I have never voted, though I've been of age for the last three presidential elections. At first it was because I lived in a state which has always been completely lopsided for one party. I felt like my vote didn't matter, which I realize is a point that many will argue. But, fu, the fact is that my state would elect republicans for national offices no matter what, period.
In the past few years, however, my reasons have changed a bit. Now I realize that I just have no faith in the electoral system. As much as I hate sounding like a long-boarding, clove-smoking,, hipster douche, I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything. Business moguls and celebrities become senators, governors, and president. Our laws, regulations, and taxes are thought up and created by people who are wealthy and powerful. They've proven time and time again that they're willing to use their position to advance their own ends.
And of course, lobbyists. Whatever company, group, or individual has the most money can trade that cash in for political influence. Oil companies wine, dine, and bribe for the rights to drill in previously protected environmental areas. Religions collect hundreds of billions annually, tax-free mind you, and then turn around and pump that money right back into congress to support bills that they find morally correct.
I know that this is nothing new. Classes have existed since the beginning of civilization. What's infuriating is that Democracy is touted as a government of the people, where decisions and policies are made based on the will of the general public.
It's not. That's why I don't vote.
Is this a blog?
Truthfully, i feel the same way, but guess what, me and you are the problem.
We need to vote, it is our duty as citizens. Why, because as you say "Democracy is touted as a government of the people, where decisions and policies are made based on the will of the general public" though I would say it is a government of the voting people because those are the opinions that are heard and rightly so. In other words, a democracy represents the people who participate...if you don't participate then you don't get representation.
So if you want any of what you are talking about to change, then you must change and actually vote, so your opinion is heard.
The problem is that people don't vote, so the gov't slowly represents smaller and smaller portions of the population.
I'll say it again, you and me are the problem (people who don't vote)..if you want someone to blame for the situation, look no further than a mirror.
|
to the op : my mom thaught me something once: whenever u feel like u dont wanna vote/ u dont care, just remind yourself how many dudes actually died so you can vote?
especially if you are an american... its like you were saying to all the GIs who went all over the world fighing latinos, commies, nazis, more commies, all sorts of arabic nations for '' democracy and $tuff''; you fought for shit coz I dont care about voting ( which i have to do like once every 2 years ---> completely screwing my schedule obviously )
Even if you think every option on the ballot is shit, just cancel your fucking vote.
|
On March 02 2012 07:18 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
to the op : my mom thaught me something once: whenever u feel like u dont wanna vote/ u dont care, just remind yourself how many dudes actually died so you can vote?
especially if you are an american... its like you were saying to all the GIs who went all over the world fighing latinos, commies, nazis, more commies, all sorts of arabic nations for '' democracy and $tuff''; you fought for shit coz I dont care about voting ( which i have to do like once every 2 years ---> completely screwing my schedule obviously )
Even if you think every option on the ballot is shit, just cancel your fucking vote.
Soldiers are heroes. But that doesn't change what I said.
|
Sad all south park streaming sites are down these days, or else...
giant douche or turd sandwich??
![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lya99vKAAV1qztbgd.jpg)
|
On March 02 2012 02:57 D10 wrote:
I wish I could not vote, here in Brazil if you dont go vote you lose a lot of rights =(
One of the reasons we elect so many corrupt politicians, so many people with 0 idea of politics voting
I assume you remember all the candidates you voted in the last election, yes?
|
I don't believe everyone should vote. I'm not even sure if my ignorant ass should vote. But I vote because I know there's people far more retarded than me so I'm trying to dilute the retard vote.
Otherwise retards win.
|
On March 02 2012 07:22 NIJ wrote:
I don't believe everyone should vote. I'm not even sure if my ignorant ass should vote. But I vote because I know there's people far more retarded than me so I'm trying to dilute the retard vote.
Otherwise retards win.
Lol retards always win. Remember when [that president you hate] was elected?
|
On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it.
This is super valid. I mean to be honest, what is the point in democracy. A democracy/republic is going to be based on voting, and because each vote doesn't matter, no one should vote. Well I guess unless they get some dumb self gratification out of it. Personally, I think that every senator/representative and the president should be given life terms, and can pick successors. That's the only way we can continue after our government all dies off. If only there was some term that I could use to crystalize the idea of a government where leaders picked their successors and there was no voting...
Maybe it'll come to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
