On March 04 2012 06:42 aebriol wrote:So you are too cowardly to continue the discussion, so you go for the argument I allready said I would only continue discussing in PM since it was a red herring
It's not a red herring, it's critical to the main argument.
Simply put, you don't understand what the word "rational" means.
As long as you think that feelings are rational, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your complete failure to understand the term is the reason why your arguments are full of fail.
On March 04 2012 06:42 aebriol wrote:one of the 3 logical fallacies you commited on the last page.
You don't have any idea what a logical fallacy is, either.
On March 02 2012 02:55 rapidash88 wrote: Things like the resistance to SOPA have shown to me that people can still weild influence in government. In my local election, the vote for a city council seat was decided by two votes, and I was glad to have voted.
The issue in our national government is partly one of corruption (which happens in ALL governments to some extent) and the fact that our election system simple is not a very good one. The two party system that we have been forced into creates more corruption then other systems
Yeah, except if we have to put in that much effort for every bad law and policy that is made to make any difference at all, it already means democracy is totally useless.
Yea, any system where a bum with no education that would trade his vote for food has the same say electing people as aristotle is bound to fail
This is one of the biggest issues for me. I spend time researching policies and examining philosophies before making my decision. Then Earl, the alcoholic high school dropout whose biggest thought for the day is "food is good," comes in and makes his decision based upon his the fact that candidate A shook his hand and seems like a really nice guy. Yet our votes count the same. As hard and dangerous as it would be, I believe the US needs to begin heading back to some sort of basic political competency test before allowing a person to vote. Not necessarily something hard, just a test to show that the person has some very basic idea of what is going on in the election/world.
If you don't like our system of government your welcome to go to Syria, or Egypt, or China, and see how you like that. Churchill said (Paraphrase): "Democracy is a terrible way to run a nation, but it's better than all the rest that have been tried from time to time."
Sure it's a mess, and it sucks sometimes, but it's still a lot better than anything else.
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?
I know i'm gonna sound like some random hippie dreamer, but even if I mostly agree to everything you say, fact is, the idiots, ultra racists and dangerous will vote, while we dont. And that is, in my opinion, a future problem, I have the same conception even if I'm french, even if some might argue that France is far more democratic than the US for example, in the end it's really close, and yes, only a few really actually have power, not the people, people can protest all they want here, we saw how uneffective that was, and thats by definition, not a democracy. But yeah, what happened for example here (sorry I know a shitload of you dont give a flying fuck about France, and I dont blame you, at all, but this is relevent to the discussion ahah), to be short, most of the young population didnt vote in the presidentials of 2002, and while youngs didnt vote, old people did, and old people at that time were afraid by the lack of security and the "imigrants problem". What happened? Our final turn of the election, was a right candidate (Chirac) against an extreme right (Le Pen) who is a known and proved (lots of court sanctions agaisnt him, A LOT) racist and, to be honest, just a crazy fucking nazi (he has been tied to some nazi cds in his youth, i'm not joking, he admired nazis... this guy was one of the two final candidates to french presidency, democracy right...). Thing is even if I have absolutely NO HOPE, AT ALL, our duty, is still to vote so that the less corrupted / racist / stupid one (even if we tend to blame everything on one guy, lets say him and his future governement), because even if it's going to only change a little, a little in that situation can change many lives and situations. But yeah, we agree, imho we're fucked, money will always rule the world, politics wont ever be what they're supposed to be, only things that could change that are a huge bank crisis, or a nuclear conflict, talk about hope...
ionno why people say your vote doesn't count, the electoral college makes winner takes all for states, but each state decides the winner of counties based on their own rules which can be proportional or use a winner take all like the electoral college. It is true that in a county strongly bias to one side that if you're the opposite your vote is probably never gonna count for much but in contested counties a few votes can mean points one way or another. Ofc that ennui of a state being one way, ie bible belt is discouraging but if you never go out to try to change the vote it will never happen.
Sunprince I only have one thing I've taken exception with that you've written, I think you're right about everything else. That is the so-called Paradox of Voting. I don't agree with it.
It assumes that voting is motivated purely by self interest and uses that as a basis to denounce voting as irrational using risk-reward as a model. I agree if voting were motivated purely by self interest (I vote to get what I want) one could use risk reward as a model.
There are, however, other reasons to vote. There is an important distinction between someone who votes to get what they want (i.e. I wanna pay less taxes) and someone who votes for what they believe is best for society at large. The risk reward only works for self interest. If you're voting for what you believe is best for your fellow man, your nation at large, and all of humanity, then your motivation is more inherently selfless, and consequently there is no risk associated with voting, and the risk reward model falls apart, as does the consequent conclusion of irrationality.
I know you'll be tempted to point out that you're still risking your time to vote towards an outcome, but how can giving your time up be considered risky if the logic is selflessness?
Voting in many circumstances is still a waste of time and does not necessarily mean you're a good socially active citizen. Further, there are other ways to be active in a democracy other than voting. Voting might be irrational like you say. I don't believe this model is satisfactory proof of that. Then again, does this model even seek to show that voting is generally irrational? It does specify conditions (self interest).
Also, I like the electoral college. A 3rd party or a coalition would go a long way towards increasing legitimacy. Another thing is people are so distracted by presidential elections...but that hardly matters. Senators and representatives are so much more important!
On March 04 2012 04:15 ShamTao wrote: My frustration comes with the two-party binary.
Republican or Democrat. No in between. And it feels like they're becoming more and more polarized to appease sheeple masses.
I wonder why no 3rd party has developed though. A lot of our 3rd parties came out of regional divides. Progressives, CCF, and Reform in the West, Union Nationale, Bloq Quebecois in Quebec. And NDP started life as CCF, but wound up representing labour interests across Canada and eventually branching out. But maybe America is too big to have any one region in solidarity that would make any difference at all. A party gains traction in 4 States... doesn't equal very much unless it's California.
According to this educational video, politics will always converge to 2 parties in any electoral college system:
On March 04 2012 04:15 ShamTao wrote: My frustration comes with the two-party binary.
Republican or Democrat. No in between. And it feels like they're becoming more and more polarized to appease sheeple masses.
I wonder why no 3rd party has developed though. A lot of our 3rd parties came out of regional divides. Progressives, CCF, and Reform in the West, Union Nationale, Bloq Quebecois in Quebec. And NDP started life as CCF, but wound up representing labour interests across Canada and eventually branching out. But maybe America is too big to have any one region in solidarity that would make any difference at all. A party gains traction in 4 States... doesn't equal very much unless it's California.
According to this educational video, politics will always converge to 2 parties in any electoral college system:
On March 02 2012 17:01 bOneSeven wrote: 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..
With any luck the test will keep those pesky blacks, women, and other non land owning white males from voting.
Seriously, the original electoral college system was set up as a safeguard from uneducated electorates. In fact the federalist papers are very prolific on the subject. Distribution of power in the government as well as the electoral college were originally designed with the intent on diluting and over riding stupid votes.
I'm not saying it was a great system, the government we were really trying to set up was an oligarchy with the facade of a republic, but thats what the founders intended at least. I'd rather take our flawed system and hope that we learn as a society to extol education and information as cornerstones of our society, than wrestle with this notion that a selecct power group should should babysit the rest of us and decide whats best.
On March 05 2012 07:00 Bigtony wrote: There's no reason not to vote :X
Also, I like the electoral college. A 3rd party or a coalition would go a long way towards increasing legitimacy. Another thing is people are so distracted by presidential elections...but that hardly matters. Senators and representatives are so much more important!
Agreed, voting takes like 15 minutes out of my life each year. You can complain and argue with others about the merits of the US electoral system (or even do things that might lead to some actual change) and at the same time keep voting. It can't hurt..
Look at voting from a strict cost-benefit analysis.
The amount of effort required to be actually knowledgeable about each policy, proposition, or candidate, coupled with the extremely small odds of your vote actually determining the outcome of an election, means that being an informed voter is actually somewhat irrational. It takes tons of work for practically zero real gain. One of the many major flaws with the democratic system.
The reason people vote is mostly as a means for self-expression, nothing more. A wise person once said, democracy makes people feel as though they are in control of their own enslavement.
I don't vote because I simply don't know enough about the candidates or the system to make make an educated vote, and honestly, even if you DO make the effort to know the system, candidates, etc, there's always going to be stuff that you simply cannot know about, no matter how much research you do. On top of that, I'm not inclined to do the research. It simply doesn't seem worth my time and effort right now.
I have a cousin that does volunteer work for getting young people (18-25, you know) to vote, even if they don't do the research on the matter. When I heard that, i almost burst out laughing. Do people these days really want a bunch of opinionated morons voting for whoever has the best commercial on TV?
The voting should be left to the people who have done the necessary research and know what the hell they're talking about,not just the folks who here the repeated rumors along with absurd and impractical promises that are floating around elections these days. That's why I don't vote.
On March 05 2012 16:38 GriNn wrote: Do people these days really want a bunch of opinionated morons voting for whoever has the best commercial on TV?
The voting should be left to the people who have done the necessary research and know what the hell they're talking about,not just the folks who here the repeated rumors along with absurd and impractical promises that are floating around elections these days. That's why I don't vote.
That's a good point that I quite agree with. Thing is, many people who complain about the vote not making a difference and hence not voting, are oftentimes people who know quite a bit about the political system, and are certainly informed enough to figure out a party or independent that supports their views best. (I'm not saying you're one of those people, but others in this thread are)
All that said, I think education for voters is an important thing that should be put more focus on so that more people can more justifiably vote. The government should be producing substantial information to help voters make their decisions — something I know exists to a degree in my country, and probably many others, but very possibly not any, not much, or just not enough, in the USA.
On March 05 2012 16:28 Dbars wrote: I dont vote and never will.
Congratulations on making a thought-provoking, substantiated post explaining your thought process and actions. You input is inexpressibly helpful to the progression of this thread.
On March 02 2012 02:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote: 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.
this is something that really fucking annoys me
religions should not be tax exempt. fuck that law right in its fucking hole. give me ONE good reason for religion to be tax exempt. And no, "it is a valuable part of our spirituality/morals" is not a good reason.
99% of people who vote are idiots, total idiots who vote sorely based upon party lines. This is an unfortunate truth.
I live in a blue state that has always been a blue state and I'm a Republican so I know my vote doesn't matter, but I vote anyway. It's just a mail in ballot that takes me 5 seconds to fill out and at least I feel like my irrelevant voice was put out there anyway. I have my own issues with my own party ontop of that but this is what I realize.
I will put it like this. I am a Republican who votes Republican because of economic issues and foreign policy strictly. I do not agree with the right on any moral issues, however I realize that most of the conservative base votes based upon this. It is a neccessary evil to get bogged down in stupid moral issues that don't matter or else there would be very few of us on this side with any sense. Unfortunately this means we also usually have canidate who are total idiots...but fortunately their advisors are who really matter, not the canidates themselves.
Point of the whole tangent being is you need the idiot mass because they are probably voting for the right guy for the wrong reasons a lot of the time. Most people don't care, or care and are uneducated about politics. It's baffling how stupid most people are about foreign policy, some of my friends I consider educated know nothing about issues I talk about when I talk politics.
EPT
