EPTWhy do people in the US vote? - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
goswser
United States3519 Posts
| ||
|
stokes17
United States1411 Posts
On March 02 2012 07:49 Gaga wrote: In our democracy we can choose the guy who sings the song. But we cannot change the song. read that somewhere on a Demo sing ... and i think its quite true. Our Politicians whoever comes to the top so we the people can choose is already a player in the system or he wouldn't have risen there. So he will play in the system and you can bet will not touch or even be able to see it's flaws. if your not a system player you are unelecetable. See Ron Paul the only one of the politicians in the US who challenges the establishment and dogmas of our time. Eh, that is a true statement in the short term (4 years can't overtly change a 200 year old nation of 300 million people) But the Political landscape of America has changed greatly from even 20 years ago. In 5-6 years when Obamacare is fully implemented (just assume it will be so i can make my point?) America will be quite different than how it was when he first took office. I would say the song has changed (no state funded health insurance--> state funded health insurance). The founders went out of their way to make our government move slowly. And lobbying has only slowed the process further. BUT, there still is a process, a slow, aggravating, infuriating, petty, messy, complex process. And the process has and will continue to lead to progress. | ||
|
raf3776
United States1904 Posts
| ||
|
Serthius
Samoa226 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 02 2012 07:37 Aserrin wrote: No they don't, I've already explained it, and your argument is simply 'oh but campaigns!'. It's ridiculous. How dense can you be? my argument has nothing to do with campaigns whatsoever, other than the fact that campaigns would be a symptom of the problem. just as those polticians and candidates would not have to campaign in or for those states and voters, they would also not have to lead and legislate for those voters and states. they would be rewarded for NOT legislating in favor of those states. even further, they would be rewarded for legislating in favor of the large states to the exclusion of the smaller states. take campigns out of it and the meat of the argument is still there. i am quite muscular, so i would say pretty dense. | ||
|
StayPhrosty
Canada406 Posts
| ||
|
stokes17
United States1411 Posts
On March 02 2012 07:51 mynameisgreat11 wrote: That is exactly NOT what I'm saying. Thank you for interpreting my words carefully. I'll say it again. Giving Obama 50k does not buy me influence with him. But, I'm giving him 50k because his policies coincide with mine. Policies he makes = good for me. So my 50k donation is an investment, and is a helluva lot more important to his re-election than my vote. Like, I'm sorry, but I definitely DO think that private individuals who make large campaign contributions have influence in national politics. If you're going to give me shit about 'not having a clue', please take the time to read what I write carefully and not put words in my mouth. At this point, like all internet forums, I can see we've probably crossed into the realm of not having a dialogue but will probably be hurling insults back and forth shortly. Yea you still aren't getting it: Supporting someone you believe in with money is the same as supporting him with effort eg campaigning for him. In no way does this give you influence over that politician. If you donate to a local fundraiser for X cause, once you donate that money you have no influence on how it used or appropriated. And you certainly have no influence over the direction of the charity. That is all that is occurring in individual campaign contributions. You say in your 1st paragraph donating money buys you no influence, then in the 2nd you say people who donate money have influence. So idn why you attacking my interpretation of your writing. You just aren't making good sense. Donating money to a campaign, working on a campaign(donating time), and voting(donating a tiny amount of time) are all ways to support a candidate. The more effort (which is money) you put in is just that... effort you've put in. If you donated a ton of money, you get to shake the candidates hand and write down that you organized a campaign function at your home or whatever. If you worked 10000 hours, maybe you get a better job if your guy wins. if you vote and your guy wins, maybe the nation tilts slightly more towards your views. NONE OF THIS IS LOBBYING. None of this will give you influence over an administration's policy making. Unless your campaign efforts literally get you a cabinet position, after the campaign is over you have no influence on the president. 70k does not buy you a telephone line into the white house, you are pretty crazy if you think otherwise. If you really want to disagree with me on this; find me a lobbyist who goes about donating 5 and 6 figures to campaigns as a way to gain influence(Not donations to the parties as a whole. Because that's not what you are claiming) If you are this convinced that's how it goes down, find me an example. As recent as the last presidential election all contributions of that size had to be over the table, so give me proof that this behavior occurs. I already gave you an example of how a real lobbyist operates. I'm sure you are an intelligent individual, but it really comes across that you don't follow or know a whole hell of a lot about campaign finance. I understand you are frustrated with American Politics, and so am I, but money is not the problem (beside citizens united). Its the news media and the lobbyists, not the campaign contributors. EDIT: I need to go out to dinner so I can't continue to post in here for a few hours. You can totally PM if you want to talk some more. Cause I do agree with you that US politics suck and has HUGE issues, you just are attacking the wrong guys. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
But if you take that situation to be rare...then there is a point about the uselessness of voting in general. You would really need to be part of a block of fellow students/adults to feel like your vote is making a meaningful difference. But even then I suspect we would be a fairly small segment of the population, and it would require a lot of work to do. Fundamentally...my reasons for either voting with a sense of apathy, or not voting entirely, is just because I don't want to do all that work to truly make a difference. I think I will continue to vote personally. Because it takes so little time, its fun to get out and do something official; and it might have an impact for those rare cases. If it were far away though I might not go through the hassle. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
1923 - One vote gave Adolf Hitler leadership of the Nazi party and eventual control of Germany. 1941 - One vote defeated the bill to kill the draft law, three months before Pearl Harbor. 1948 - Lyndon B. Johnson became a U.S. senator by a one vote margin. 1960 - In presidential election, one additional vote per precinct in Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey and Texas would have put Richard M. Nixon in office eight years earlier. 1982 - In Illinois, Governor Jim Thompson defeated Adlai Stevenson by less than 1/2 a vote per precinct. http://www.new-horizons.org/elgvot.html more recently: bush vs gore The importance of individual votes can be best demonstrated during the past Presidential Election in Florida. Florida was the key to the entire election; neither candidate could claim victory without its 25 electoral votes. The margin of victory in Florida was even smaller than it was nationally. According to election results posted on the ABC News website, out of 5,958,147 votes cast, 2,910,457 went for George W. Bush and 2,910,029 went for Al Gore (ABC News, 2000). The difference here is only 428, or about .00718% of all votes cast in the state. Ultimately because both candidates needed Florida's electoral votes, the Presidency of the United States was decided by about 500 individuals in Florida. 500 people is such a small margin considering over 100 million people cast ballots. For the moment disregarding the legal wrangling over recounts, undervotes, and voter discrimination claims, never before has a presidential election been decided by such a small margin. If only 500 people, in a state of well over 15 million, changed their vote or did not vote at all, the outcome of the election would have been different. | ||
|
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
| ||
|
yoshi_yoshi
United States440 Posts
On March 02 2012 07:58 raf3776 wrote: Honestly id rather have people not vote than vote blindly. Not many people my age (college) know anything about politics. A few act like they know something about the politicians but are just saying rumors and big news stories. A bunch of people voting just to vote on someone is worse than not voting. in my opinion at least I feel the complete opposite about people my age (20s). If our generation shows low voting turnout (which it does), then politicians won't give a crap about us. Your vote goes beyond the person or issue you are directly weighing in on. You are also saying that you want to be counted, and a politician will know that if they screw you over then you are prepared to vote the other way. Screwing over a group that has low voter turnout is less risky. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
EdouarKiLL
Russian Federation112 Posts
USA I think nowaydays democracy means nothing =) | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On March 02 2012 03:35 mynameisgreat11 wrote: True, what opting out does nothing. But what can I realistically do? -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: Well, using the African-American civil rights movement as an example, if I protest in a lot of different ways, and gather millions of other people, for 300 years, then I have a shot. -Work in politics: This is speculative, but I'd imagine that since I am poor and have no connections, I would never, ever be in a position to make any impact on anything. How was the African American civil rights movement 300 years long? bad history is bad | ||
|
Sprouter
United States1724 Posts
| ||
|
agitprop
United States37 Posts
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? The business moguls, the wealthy elite, senator celebrities, lobbyists, and the Man himself got on a conference call with me and asked me to thank you for not voting. They really appreciate the apathy they've managed to engender in you and hope you take it to your grave. In my lifetime, statesmen have been elected. Would they have been if voters were apathetic? Our government does positive things, surely. Why? Exceptionally bad or even slightly incompetent politicians have not been reelected. Especially at the local level. Also, stopping by the voting booth on the way to work or school has been an insanely effortless experience for me and I would do it even if I had to wait in line, but the truth is, the more I vote (even in a state where who I vote for will almost certainly not get elected) the more money is eventually put into the hands of those I'm voting for. Losing an election sucks, but not as badly as losing it by an insane margin. Third party votes count, too, as candidates from major parties adopt issues from third parties to bring in more votes. I also believe it is my civic duty to vote. Duty is not a popular term anymore, I wish it returned to being one. I agree with some of the underlying implications of your post, our system has flaws and might even be seriously flawed, but I live in it, and I am willing to put forth some effort in the name of civic duty to improve it. | ||
|
UmiNotsuki
United States633 Posts
| ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
Also, just because you voted for someone who didn't end up winning the election, it doesn't mean that the vote wasn't counted. How people vote is looked at by the political parties, and if they see that they are losing ground to their rivals, this will cause them to rethink their strategies and ideas. Lastly, i really want you to realise that yours and my democracy is extremely closely linked to our personal freedom. The system of accountability that is inherent to democracy means that people in authority always have someone higher to answer to, and the ultimate highest people who the police and the army and everyone else is answerable to is the politicians, and they are accountable to the public. In this way, it doesn't matter who you vote for, or who wins (as long as they are moderate), it is the perpetual ongoing status of our democracy that is most important. Is it a healthy democracy which is working to ensure that everyone is accountable and that ordinary people are free to do what they want without interference from people in power, or is it a democracy which has no legitimacy, and therefore completely undermines those politicians powers over the civil service and the military/police. THIS is why you should vote, not to get your own way in the election, but to support the system that is democracy. | ||
|
winter017
United States103 Posts
Explain to me how becoming engaged in my local political processes will prevent lobbyists from having a strong influence in Washington. because if you are engaged in the party at the local level you can put forward primary challenges, you can raise your own candidates through the process who think the same way you do. seems like a good way to reduce the influence of lobbyists when the candidates don't think they should take money from them, and might possibly introduce legislation that would curb that process or vote for supreme court justices who would reverse things like citizens united etc. but if you aren't involved in the processes that even selects the candidates you ultimately vote for in the general election it shows a level of apathy which is creating the problem in the first place. | ||
|
Soulstice
United States288 Posts
| ||
| ||
) 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
