On March 02 2012 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: I don't understand the logic of complaints that the rich 1% control the government when they can only, at most, be 1% of the vote.
let's say you own the only news station (which in 2012 is ridiculous but in the past would not have been) or the only paper in town.
so now you control the information that most people get about candidates, issues, etc.
and of course to be a serious candidate you need a huge war chest. billionaires can singlehandedly prop up failed campaigns (hello Newt).
in America money is a greater power than any other. money writes opinion, shapes information and puts people in position to act.
this whole 99% thing is a joke anyway. while it is good in theory, these people wont go out and vote. they didnt go vote in 2010 and they didnt go vote in important races like prop 8. just a bunch of people who are more concerned with voicing an opinion than making the small sacrifice required to actually get something done. the Tea Party losers, they vote. the evangelicals, they vote. the old people, they vote.
by all means, I hope those people keep talking, and talking loud. but I lost faith that they would ever actually do anything a long time ago.
It's still the American people's fault for only voting for people with massive campaign pockets and the Tea Party is one of the few groups in American politics that is doing real good. They are not philosophical enough but at least they accomplish concrete good in terms of promoting candidates that aren't just hollow shells of people who can barley even be called conservatives and who will fail take any drastic action.
On March 02 2012 13:00 Hall0wed wrote: I don't vote because I don't want to do Jury Duty.
i assume you dont have a license then as well, because most juries are selected from DMV records.
No, selected from Voter registration or DMV. Obviously I have a license, I am just decreasing my chances of being called.
i just tell them im a lawyer and then they hate me and excuse me. ;-)
Lol, yep, best excuse ever.
"I'm a law---" "Strike him."
They also ask if you're racially prejudiced. My dad always says he's racist to all races except his own (Asian) and they strike him off the list. :l
someone tried that on my jury and the judge punished him for it. refused to let him go and told us she was just going to make him sit out the whole process because he was likely lying.
On March 02 2012 14:58 Kaitlin wrote: I don't understand the logic of complaints that the rich 1% control the government when they can only, at most, be 1% of the vote.
let's say you own the only news station (which in 2012 is ridiculous but in the past would not have been) or the only paper in town.
so now you control the information that most people get about candidates, issues, etc.
and of course to be a serious candidate you need a huge war chest. billionaires can singlehandedly prop up failed campaigns (hello Newt).
in America money is a greater power than any other. money writes opinion, shapes information and puts people in position to act.
this whole 99% thing is a joke anyway. while it is good in theory, these people wont go out and vote. they didnt go vote in 2010 and they didnt go vote in important races like prop 8. just a bunch of people who are more concerned with voicing an opinion than making the small sacrifice required to actually get something done. the Tea Party losers, they vote. the evangelicals, they vote. the old people, they vote.
by all means, I hope those people keep talking, and talking loud. but I lost faith that they would ever actually do anything a long time ago.
It's still the American people's fault for only voting for people with massive campaign pockets and the Tea Party is one of the few groups in American politics that is doing real good. They are not philosophical enough but at least they accomplish concrete good in terms of promoting candidates that aren't just hollow shells of people who can barley even be called conservatives and who will fail take any drastic action.
problem is that the tea party candidates are crazy. and only candidates with large war chests can hope to make it through the whole process.
On March 02 2012 13:00 Hall0wed wrote: I don't vote because I don't want to do Jury Duty.
i assume you dont have a license then as well, because most juries are selected from DMV records.
No, selected from Voter registration or DMV. Obviously I have a license, I am just decreasing my chances of being called.
i just tell them im a lawyer and then they hate me and excuse me. ;-)
Lol, yep, best excuse ever.
"I'm a law---" "Strike him."
They also ask if you're racially prejudiced. My dad always says he's racist to all races except his own (Asian) and they strike him off the list. :l
except for the part where you're sworn ind nad the part where that's on the record? i'm sorry, i don't want to give sworn statements that i'm a racist...
On March 02 2012 14:26 bRiz wrote: You vote because it's your right, and if you don't vote, you can't complain.
That's how my dad put it to me when I thought I was too good to vote or it was a waste of time. Voted every year after that!
My story is similar. My pops told me "if you dont vote you can't complain about anything, if you do, you can say whatever you want because it's your right"
Its funny going through this posts and saying how they are sick of the way things are and were supporting Ron Paul or flat out don't.
I'll start off by I'm an atheist and some where between Libertarian and Conservative and support Ron Paul. I too am sick of the way things are and want that to change. I feel that he is the one to do that.
1. I agree that this 2-party things sucks if a 3rd party gained some power it would give some new sparkle to the place. 2. One of the problems is that the president over the last 40/50 years has gained power than the founders intended him to have. 3. There really isn't a republican or democrat in that most are socialist/authoritarian(Social Security, Medicare, Medicad, ObamaCare, The War on Drugs and before Alcohol, wanting to ban video games, music, books, SOPA, etc.) Both sides support a lot of those things. This is a must watch video. (Yea its Fox News even I'm not a fan but on their business channel it has some good stuff especially Stossel's program and the recently cancelled Freedom Watch).
4. Whats so wrong with Ron Paul? He wants to follow the constitution. I saw some posts about him selling out. WTF when did he sell out? He would get us out of the wars we are fighting because they were done unconstitutionally done. Slash a good portion of the federal budget and still be able to keep things like SS and Medicare, though he would partial want to get rid of them as a federal program. He wants the states to gain some of the power that they have lost. He is Pro-life but he wants abortion to be a states issue and not something the federal gov. can dictate. He would cut your income tax to zero so that the government has less power over you. Okay he wouldn't just cut taxes to the 1% he would cut it for 100% of the people. The tax that he would really get rid of the inflation tax. Inflation Tax Wickard v Filburn He wants to end the Fed, which imo is the biggest problem we have right now. Want to know why gas prices are so high right now? Its because our dollar is fiat. If you look at how much a barrel of oil costs vs. gold you will see that its under the average of the last 40ish years. Reason for gas prices/Fiat money
There are more examples but here is a few to get started on.
As others have said in the system we have here in the US you have to be active about it, whether its voting or joining rallies or just telling friends and family.
In winner takes all system of electoral votes, I am similarly at war with the idea that my vote won't change how California always goes for the Democrats. But, when you break down how the various counties have results + Show Spoiler +
You get the idea that you can still show how counties align themselves EVEN if the electoral college don't give you nothing. So in my own way, I show that CA aint this liberal bastion of blue. And of course house of reps my votes are meaningful.
On March 02 2012 16:04 OsoVega wrote:It's still the American people's fault for only voting for people with massive campaign pockets and the Tea Party is one of the few groups in American politics that is doing real good. They are not philosophical enough but at least they accomplish concrete good in terms of promoting candidates that aren't just hollow shells of people who can barley even be called conservatives and who will fail take any drastic action.
The Tea Party movement thinks it's doing good, and claims that it's doing good, but they're funded by the same 1% people that fund the rest of the Republican Party, and support the same politicians who serve the 1% that they claim to despise.
Hilariously, the Tea Party members are the same people who did nothing while Bush racked up deficits, only to start screaming when the Obama administration spends money on stuff they don't like. They're the idiots who demand a $4 trillion tax cut, refuse cuts to Social Security and Medicare (which they disproportionately benefit from), yet magically expect a balanced budget. They're sincerely against government spending... except when it benefits them. They're the group that formed to scream about taxes right after Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans. They're the people who were responsible for the debt-ceiling crisis, and all because they don't understand basic math.
So, no, the Tea Party is most certainly not doing good. They're just well-meaning, but ignorant fools being used by the elite to further the goals of the 1%.
Universal voting system is so flawed....give the stupid the right to choose your leaders and your wannabe leaders will inevitably choose manipulation mechanisms to get in office. You need to take like a test in order to be able to vote and also you should have kind of a "part-time job" of constantly involving in politics/what the electable guys have done in the past with serious inspection. It may kill about 10 hours/week of your time but at least you will have leaders who will at least try a lot harder to seem like they are respectable men. And anyways, to many unelected officials have immense power...take Donald Rumsfeld for example..
The Occupy movement or whatever protest movement comes after it has to have specific concrete goals to change the political process. The two causes of the current political crisis is the electoral college system and lobbying. Protesters should forget about occupying every city in the US and all go to DC in one big massive demonstration on Capitol Hill saying "We want 2 things: 1. Replace the electoral college system. 2. Make elections publicly funded. Private money going to politicians should be a crime. This will require that the Constitution be changed. So be it. Its time to for Americans to realize that their founding fathers invented a good system but not a perfect system and the need has arisen to make a change.
Politicians only keep promises to those who put them in office. To them, its their campaign donors, not the voters who are the ones who put them in office because without the funding they wouldn't even be in the position to run in the first place. As long as lobbying exists voting is just a charade.
From a European (German) point of view, US politics is just a huge funny fail. Starting with the presidential electionsystem (winner takes it all), i mean 49% of votes can be simply "deleted" in a state? srsly?^^
And then the candidates, i mean if i had the choise between a nobel peace prize winner, and guys who says "something is wrong in our country if gay people can serve in the army, but kids cant celebrate chrismas". Yea this guy is out but the other are not really better. Politics in other countrys who makes so many stupid mistakes "elect me because my wife drives to expensive cars to help the car company (lol)" would be out in a heartbeat.
On March 02 2012 03:11 SerpentFlame wrote: And think about this: by not voting, you're amplifying the votes of the rabid partisans. People who get into power and abuse it count on your not-voting. That's one reason they end up getting away with so much.
This is pretty much /endthread in my opinion. Every person has a say, and when you give up, you're just giving those who you dislike even more power. It is always against a person's best interests to not vote; it simply makes no sense.
That said, the United States is an abomination to the name "republic" — it's quite twisted up system compared to what it should be in theory.
While various factors are hindering the 3rd parties from getting strongly established (namely the problem of Duverger's law. Instant-runoff vote/alternative vote/contingent vote would be a good way to deal with that), you people need to realize that the elections are not just a choice between 2 parties. There's the Green Party, Constitution party, Libertarian party, plus many many more lesser-voted options.
Vote for the party that you prefer most (as opposed to the major party you would rather have). This is especially the case for those of you who consider abstaining from voting. Not voting when you actually care about (not for) the government system, or the country, or the politics, or anything similar is absolutely disgusting. How can you say ANYTHING politics-related about your country when you chose not to vote? You don't have the right. People who don't vote should be people who don't care about the government, politics, etc. and who don't know better or are completely both uninformed who to vote for, as well as the fact that they don't know that they should learn who they should vote for.
From what I understand, Democrats and Republicans have agreed on all the major issues since the 70, and now all the debate that is left is about societal and irrelevant issues, like who's gonna stay 7 years more in Iraq, who will stay only 5... etc...
Republicans and democrats are blowing their differences out of proportion, with false promises and so on, just to give the illusion that you still live in a democracy, where you have real choice. That's not the case anymore.
The US lobbying power will keep demonizing and ridiculing the ones whom they do not see fitting in.
On March 02 2012 18:20 Xapti wrote:Every person has a say, and when you give up, you're just giving those who you dislike even more power. It is always against a person's best interests to not vote; it simply makes no sense.
You assume that the fact that you have a vote means you have a say. This isn't true.
Because of how the electoral college system works, in many cases you do not have a meaningful say in any way. If you live in a state that is 90% Republican, do you really believe that voting Democratic will have any meaningful effect? Do you think voting for an independent candidate will have any meaningful effect?
The truth is, you don't always have a say, and choosing not to vote doesn't give the opposition more power, because you never had any to give up in the first place. Put the feel-good BS aside and accept the reality that a vote only matters under certain circumstances, e.g. when the number of voters is relatively small and/or the particular vote is close.
On March 02 2012 18:20 Xapti wrote:While various factors are hindering the 3rd parties from getting strongly established (namely the problem of Duverger's law. Instant-runoff vote/alternative vote/contingent vote would be a good way to deal with that), you people need to realize that the elections are not just a choice between 2 parties. There's the Green Party, Constitution party, Libertarian party, plus many many more lesser-voted options.
Throwing your vote away does not constitute a choice. Voting for an independent candidate is, in most aspects, equivalent to abstaining.
On March 02 2012 18:20 Xapti wrote:Vote for the party that you prefer most (as opposed to the major party you would rather have). This is especially the case for those of you who consider abstaining from voting. Not voting when you actually care about (not for) the government system, or the country, or the politics, or anything similar is absolutely disgusting. How can you say ANYTHING politics-related about your country when you chose not to vote? You don't have the right. People who don't vote should be people who don't care about the government, politics, etc. and who don't know better or are completely both uninformed who to vote for, as well as the fact that they don't know that they should learn who they should vote for.
I call BS. There's nothing magical about voting which affects your right to expresssion.
I call BS. There's nothing magical about voting which affects your right to expresssion.
I'm not saying there's anything magical. I'm saying it's disgusting if you say and think 1 thing, but do nothing about it.
Do you think voting for an independent candidate will have any meaningful effect? ... Throwing your vote away does not constitute a choice. Voting for an independent candidate is, in most aspects, equivalent to abstaining.
I'm not talking about only independents, I'm talking about parties. If you think voting for a 3rd party is like abstaining, then it's all the more reason to vote 3rd party. Revolutions don't happen with people sitting on their asses doing dick-all being too lazy to go out and vote. If there's 40+ % of people not voting, that could mean 40+% of the population who could vote for 3rd parties. If such people don't vote for a third party because their popular rate in a previous election was only 0.1% instead of 2, 6, or 15% then the 3rd party will never get a foothold because the lazy dicks don't care enough. If a party gets part a 5% voting threshold, they will receive extra funding by the federal government. Do you not think that's worth something? Is even that unobtainable in your view? It doesn't matter if everyone else in the state voted for someone else, your vote still counts to the 5% that everyone else in the nation voted for. While the rules could be improved, and it's far from the most ideal democracies, this isn't a dictatorship or oligarchy and everyone still has at least a say.
You assume that the fact that you have a vote means you have a say. This isn't true.
It's completely true. Having a say doesn't mean having a hand in. Maybe it should, but if enough people belief that then it could come to fruition.
With a huge amount of people who don't vote at all, it gives NO indication of what the people want. If a major party can get someone's vote by incorporating a 3rd party's policy into their own, they could obtain some of such 3rd party's votes, resulting in overall change even if the same major party(ies) are in power. If 5% vote green, 4% vote libertarian, 9% vote communist, it AT LEAST shows the opinions of the populace, and people can work from there.
except the resistance wasn't done through the political system... our political system is fucking broken. we resisted it through mass demonstration. recently we've had to threaten greater levels of popular unrest to get our asshole politicians to do what we actually want them to do. if they keep going the way they are now, it's only a matter of time before people in this country start flipping cars and breaking windows.
that's the one beautiful thing about our political system. it's so fucking incompetent that it couldn't save itself from a popular uprising.
The resistance was very much done through the political system.
If you commit a political act, that by definition is in the political system.
You have a very limited and inaccurate view of what the political system is.
If my neighbor and I spend three minutes discussing or arguing about politics, if no one else ever hears about our conversation, if the only two people that conversation ever influences are us or it doesn't influence us at all, it's still taking place in the political system.
This thread is taking place in the political system.
I think it's hilarious that so many retards in this thread keep spouting the 'if you don't vote, then you can't complain" bullshit. Oh, so you can tell me what I can and cannot say now? Who exactly made you the king? Oh that's right, no one, so you can shut up now.
I don't vote, because I don't agree with any of the people running. By voting for them, I'm supporting them, even if it's only in a small way. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and I refuse to support evil.
I have a fascination with how everyone always complains about the ignorant masses and people controlled by the media, yet I have never encountered a person myself who believes they are.
In a democratic system each individual has one vote. It is important that everyone who has an opinion voices it with their vote. If someone lives in a society where they think "most people just vote x because that's what everyone does", they are delusional. You are not a one in a million critically thinking individual, you are just one of the mass. I am too, everyone is. If you live in a state where one of the parties wins by a landslide, it's because the people in the state like the message being brought to them by that party.
Seriously, I hate it when people put themselves on some kinda high chair and are arrogant enough to denounce democracy because most everyone doesn't agree with their opinions. Did you never stop to think that perhaps all those people who are just "sheeping" actually just don't agree with you?
On March 02 2012 22:02 Hyuzak wrote: I don't vote, because I don't agree with any of the people running. By voting for them, I'm supporting them, even if it's only in a small way. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and I refuse to support evil.
This is why other countries usually have the option to vote 'blank'. You're not supporting any evil candidate/party, but you do count for voter turnout (in some countries the election results are invalid if the turnout is less that x%) and you're showing that you have an interest in politics.
If you don't vote, this is usually seen an not having an interest in politics at all.
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/CA2008Pres.svg)
