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.
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?
this is actually a very accurate representation of how i feel, too
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
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.
Most people don't vote. From what I hear the percentage gets lower and lower too. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that most people don't prescribe to either of the two candidates policies, and therefore don't think voting is worth it or don't feel compelled to vote in the first place.
If you are dissatisfied by politicians, voice your opinion. If all of the so called “middle class” votes, then politician will have to do something that makes middle class happy. Because if they don’t, they won’t get elected. If people like you don’t vote, why would politicians spend time and money to you? Every vote counts and if you neglect to vote, you are forfeiting your life to hands of others.
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
Corruption is now legal, it's called lobbying. We all know what really happens. There are really few "state men", men who will put behind their own interest for the interest of the nation. Especially in time of peace. The sad thing is that in most countries the blank ballot paper is not counted. Therefor I won't vote either, I don't want to vote for the less worse.
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
SOPA is an example of sorts. We the people stopped the government from openly invading our privacy, in this one way, for now. But they still do it. Phones and 100% of internet use is still monitored, and has been for some time. We voted to keep it swept under the rug for now.
Local elections are different, I agree that individual votes will matter there. But who cares? The majority of meaningful policy is federal.
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. Seriously? What happened to separation of church and state? The rest of the Republican candidates are completely repulsive to me, and Obama is just meh.
On top of that you have the fact that our nation is a true idiocracy. Just look at our television ads and journalism. Advertisement is utter crap, designed around subliminal messaging to a sleeping populace. Journalism is even worse: pure sensationalism, or in the case of FOX, fabrication. But the fact is, the nation has tons of people that love watching FOX and believe all the drivel that comes out of the reporters' mouths. When you realize that the average IQ is 100, that means that fully 50% of our nation is below that. And these people are allowed to vote.
Even more worrisome is I'm not sure if their votes even affect the outcome of the system at all. The electoral college system results in a binary winner-takes-all system in each state, which means that any intelligent people who live in West Virginia might as well not exist for purposes of this election.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I really just don't care any more. America is fucked up, and I hope it goes down in flames.
edit2: Hmm... proving Republicans are stupid. The rest of the article is interesting, but you can just skip to the end if you want. http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm
People actually don't vote in the United States. In comparison to other democracies, the United States typically has significantly smaller voter turnout than its peers.
It comes down to people feeling that the costs of voting far outweigh the benefits of actually going out to vote. The costs are numerous: having to become knowledgable about the candidates, physically going out to the polling station, taking time off work in order to vote, etc. Along with those obvious costs, there are psychological costs as well: feeling like your vote is being wasted is the largest one. All this can, and does, add up to voting being very costly to the average American, and our voter turnout rates reflect this.
This relationship can be expressed in a formula:
Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
A lot of why this is so has to do with the prevalance of winner-take-all majoritarian voting systems in America. In addition, the constitution promotes the continuation of a two-party political consensus. Other democracies may operate in some sort of a proportional representation system, which promote the existence and significance of third parties, with alternative voting systems accompanying their elections. These end up increasing the utility of voting for the individual voter and leads to typically higher voter turnout rates.
For more information:
Rosenstone, Behr, and Lazarus. 1984 Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure. Princeton. Princeton University Press..
A politician is like a used car salesman. Only this one only gets a chance to get that all important sale once every 2-4 years, and will do anything and everything in their power to get that sale.
Until people stop rewarding politicians who have proven to subscribe to the above statement, nothing will change.
Also, that Electoral College thingy. That probably needs to be looked at to. When the founding fathers figured that the average joe voter was stupid enough to need someone else to vote for them to select their figurehead, it amuses me. The fact that as the world has changed, grown, become quite global (manifest destiny in another form), that hasn't disappeared, worries me.
Well, if you ever intend on running for public office (it doesn't sound like you do), not voting can come back to hurt you. Meg Whitman, who ran for governor of California in 2010, was dinged for not having voted for 19 years. Here at college, if I vote I can probably convince a few of my friends to vote as well. Since they share a similar view of politics (it sucks, but the far right is crazy), it makes my vote count for a little more. Even though Massachusetts is usually reliably blue, we did get a Republican senator in 2010, so there's a something still worth voting for. I guess it doesn't make too much sense in a state that is always one color or another, but Florida was decided by 537 votes in 2010.
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.
On March 02 2012 03:07 itsjustatank wrote: People actually don't vote in the United States. In comparison to other democracies, the United States typically has significantly smaller voter turnout than its peers.
It comes down to people feeling that the costs of voting far outweigh the benefits of actually going out to vote. The costs are numerous: having to become knowledgable about the candidates, physically going out to the polling station, taking time off work in order to vote, etc. Along with those obvious costs, there are psychological costs as well: feeling like your vote is being wasted is the largest one. All this can, and does, add up to voting being very costly to the average American, and our voter turnout rates reflect this.
This relationship can be expressed in a formula:
Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
A lot of why this is so has to do with the prevalance of winner-take-all majoritarian voting systems in America. In addition, the constitution promotes the continuation of a two-party political consensus. Other democracies may operate in some sort of a proportional representation system, which promote the existence and significance of third parties, with alternative voting systems accompanying their elections. These end up increasing the utility of voting for the individual voter and leads to typically higher voter turnout rates.
While all of that may be true, I would say it is a separate issue from what I brought up.
My reason for not voting isn't because I know my candidates won't win, but rather my belief that government is run by wealthy who use their positions to further their own interests. I think the problem is perpetual. Rich use positions of power to make themselves richer, which moves them even further to the top.
I know with the electoral college being what it is your vote is basically worthless to begin with. Add on that the abortion that is the system now with "corporations being people", lobbying and all this BS and it's even more silly. The inmates run the asylum.
I like some things Obama has done, I hate some things he's done, and he's a pussy (along with democrats as a whole). The right wing is a bunch of lunatics to the man. RP has some alright ideas, but he's got way more awful ones than he does decent.
I've voted previously, but I don't think I will be this election. Absolutely no one represents me. Until the entire system gets a shakedown I don't see it getting better.
If a complete psychopath the likes of a Palin or Santorum get elected I'll be posting from somewhere in Scandinavia in the future.
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?
At the risk of being lumped in with you "hipster douches" I third this entire sentiment. The time when politicians were respected public servants that tried to represent the will of their constituents is something of a fairy-tale in today's United States, they are all just celebriticians to me anymore. They get elected for a term and then they go off to shoot a reality show (I'm looking at you Sarah Palin, you frigid wacko). We have lost our electoral individuality and the ability to do much more than vote along the stilted lines of party politics :/
We are a nation of people just asking to be pandered to and reassured that we live in a safe little bubble far from the strife and war of those other places, which to most are just points on a globe and not really places at all, filled with thinking feeling individuals like us! Because if they were people like us, then how would we justify the tiresome meddling and war-mongering that is a part of our foreign policy?
People all over the place want us to think that the views of those "crazies" at the occupy wallstreet protests weren't indicitive of the changing political climate in this country and that the sentiments expressed by the majority of the people that have attended these and similar rallies; namely campaign funding reform and the end of corporate personhood, weren't in line with "mainstream" America, but they're wrong! We the people are sick of being balked and we're sick of our vote being a token of free-will at the most, we want our vote to matter, and it won't until we seriously reform our political system.
Down with party politics and business as usual! Lets all get out there and DO something, we are powerful and we are responsible for the current state of affairs and where we head as a nation in the future. Lobbyists and bankers can only hold onto power for so long before they are made superfluous by convergant technology such as social media and cheap easy journalism that the internet provides us all, the information is out there the impetus for change is nigh, repent all republicans and democrats!
Sorry got a little dramatic there at the end, but this shit is serious business! Thanks for the post, cheers mate!
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.
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.
I vote on smaller topics that will effect me locally/statewide, I will vote on governors and senate seats but I feel things like presidents are already decided in each state due to the joke of a system that is the electoral college, sure there are some states still up for grabs but there are many states that have been overwhelmingly Red or Blue since the beginning of the electoral college such as my home state as such I don't bother to vote.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
On March 02 2012 03:07 itsjustatank wrote: People actually don't vote in the United States. In comparison to other democracies, the United States typically has significantly smaller voter turnout than its peers.
It comes down to people feeling that the costs of voting far outweigh the benefits of actually going out to vote. The costs are numerous: having to become knowledgable about the candidates, physically going out to the polling station, taking time off work in order to vote, etc. Along with those obvious costs, there are psychological costs as well: feeling like your vote is being wasted is the largest one. All this can, and does, add up to voting being very costly to the average American, and our voter turnout rates reflect this.
This relationship can be expressed in a formula:
Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
A lot of why this is so has to do with the prevalance of winner-take-all majoritarian voting systems in America. In addition, the constitution promotes the continuation of a two-party political consensus. Other democracies may operate in some sort of a proportional representation system, which promote the existence and significance of third parties, with alternative voting systems accompanying their elections. These end up increasing the utility of voting for the individual voter and leads to typically higher voter turnout rates.
While all of that may be true, I would say it is a separate issue from what I brought up.
My reason for not voting isn't because I know my candidates won't win, but rather my belief that government is run by wealthy who use their positions to further their own interests. I think the problem is perpetual. Rich use positions of power to make themselves richer, which moves them even further to the top.
Actually, it's not a separate issue. What you described in your OP was your personal calculus as to whether or not voting was, in your case, useful to you. Believe it or not, it corresponds with that formula and my analysis pretty well.
"Government is run by the wealthy" still works within the existing political structure, with its political parties and voting systems. You see two major parties and think that there isn't much differentiating them; but because of the voting system, you feel like a vote for the available alternatives is a waste so you don't vote in the end.
This is true for most countries, if you want to change things you have to do it yourself or through people you know. Voting in whatever election is not really changing anything. Start a movement, start lobbying yourself, become a politician, etc.
On March 02 2012 03:07 itsjustatank wrote: People actually don't vote in the United States. In comparison to other democracies, the United States typically has significantly smaller voter turnout than its peers.
It comes down to people feeling that the costs of voting far outweigh the benefits of actually going out to vote. The costs are numerous: having to become knowledgable about the candidates, physically going out to the polling station, taking time off work in order to vote, etc. Along with those obvious costs, there are psychological costs as well: feeling like your vote is being wasted is the largest one. All this can, and does, add up to voting being very costly to the average American, and our voter turnout rates reflect this.
This relationship can be expressed in a formula:
Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
A lot of why this is so has to do with the prevalance of winner-take-all majoritarian voting systems in America. In addition, the constitution promotes the continuation of a two-party political consensus. Other democracies may operate in some sort of a proportional representation system, which promote the existence and significance of third parties, with alternative voting systems accompanying their elections. These end up increasing the utility of voting for the individual voter and leads to typically higher voter turnout rates.
While all of that may be true, I would say it is a separate issue from what I brought up.
My reason for not voting isn't because I know my candidates won't win, but rather my belief that government is run by wealthy who use their positions to further their own interests. I think the problem is perpetual. Rich use positions of power to make themselves richer, which moves them even further to the top.
Actually, it's not a separate issue. What you described in your OP was your personal calculus as to whether or not voting was, in your case, useful to you. Believe it or not, it corresponds with that formula and my analysis pretty well.
"Government is run by the wealthy" still works within the existing political structure, with its political parties and voting systems. You see two major parties and think that there isn't much differentiating them; but because of the voting system, you feel like a vote for the available alternatives is a waste so you don't vote in the end.
No, I still think its different. I interpret what you brought up as an analysis of the costs of voting vs. the likelihood of my vote electing the person I want.
I think that's certainly important, but not what I was getting at. I certainly think there is a clear distinction between the two parties. I don't vote because I think the federal government is run by a very small, very wealthy, elite class, and the idea of US policies being decided 'by the people' is completely untrue.
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.
It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^
If you don't vote and you still complain, I have no sympathy for you. Plus, for what it's worth, engaging in discussions about why you're voting for someone can absolutely sway people's opinions.
What's really missing is an option on the ballot paper that says "none of the above".
Almost all media coverage on the issue of the declining percentage of voters vs. non-voters doesn't distinguish between those who don't vote because they aren't interested in politics and those who don't vote because they are interested in politics. Even worse, more often than not, the latter are depicted as though they were the former. Of course, this isn't likely to happen in the near future, simply because the same lobbies that profit from the system as it is have the interest to decredit all those who refuse to vote as ignorant, no matter their actual intentions.
On March 02 2012 03:22 OldManSenex wrote: [image blocked]
I am emo, thank you for pointing it out.
What did you think about the 99% protesters? Generally, they seemed to be arguing the same things I am, but I would say that they accomplished pretty much zilch.
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.
It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^
If you don't vote and you still complain, I have no sympathy for you. Plus, for what it's worth, engaging in discussions about why you're voting for someone can absolutely sway people's opinions.
Unless that reason is god told me to, like 43% of voters polled in Bush's second term win
The USA is actually a republic, people throw the word democracy around like it makes us better than everyone. In a democracy people vote on issues, this is was not feasible with the size the the country and even with the technology today it is not realistic. The republic system allows people to vote for other people to vote for them, they believe this person will represent their views properly.
To be honest, I don't know what governmental system is best, or any of that. We are a great social experiment, for the rest of the world to watch and judge.
On March 02 2012 03:07 itsjustatank wrote: People actually don't vote in the United States. In comparison to other democracies, the United States typically has significantly smaller voter turnout than its peers.
It comes down to people feeling that the costs of voting far outweigh the benefits of actually going out to vote. The costs are numerous: having to become knowledgable about the candidates, physically going out to the polling station, taking time off work in order to vote, etc. Along with those obvious costs, there are psychological costs as well: feeling like your vote is being wasted is the largest one. All this can, and does, add up to voting being very costly to the average American, and our voter turnout rates reflect this.
This relationship can be expressed in a formula:
Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
A lot of why this is so has to do with the prevalance of winner-take-all majoritarian voting systems in America. In addition, the constitution promotes the continuation of a two-party political consensus. Other democracies may operate in some sort of a proportional representation system, which promote the existence and significance of third parties, with alternative voting systems accompanying their elections. These end up increasing the utility of voting for the individual voter and leads to typically higher voter turnout rates.
While all of that may be true, I would say it is a separate issue from what I brought up.
My reason for not voting isn't because I know my candidates won't win, but rather my belief that government is run by wealthy who use their positions to further their own interests. I think the problem is perpetual. Rich use positions of power to make themselves richer, which moves them even further to the top.
Actually, it's not a separate issue. What you described in your OP was your personal calculus as to whether or not voting was, in your case, useful to you. Believe it or not, it corresponds with that formula and my analysis pretty well.
"Government is run by the wealthy" still works within the existing political structure, with its political parties and voting systems. You see two major parties and think that there isn't much differentiating them; but because of the voting system, you feel like a vote for the available alternatives is a waste so you don't vote in the end.
No, I still think its different. I interpret what you brought up as an analysis of the costs of voting vs. the likelihood of my vote electing the person I want.
I think that's certainly important, but not what I was getting at. I certainly think there is a clear distinction between the two parties. I don't vote because I think the federal government is run by a very small, very wealthy, elite class, and the idea of US policies being decided 'by the people' is completely untrue.
Fair enough, I still think the analysis fits your description. It is also true, though, that the analysis may not really take into account a potential complete lack of faith in a voter's electoral, political, and democratic governance structure. I don't share your opinion, but I do recognize it.
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.
It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^
If you don't vote and you still complain, I have no sympathy for you. Plus, for what it's worth, engaging in discussions about why you're voting for someone can absolutely sway people's opinions.
I'm happy to engage in political debate and consider myself extremely informed on the subjects but I also understand basic statistics and game theory. The facts about the relationship between your vote and the outcome doesn't change depending upon how politically involved you feel you are.
On March 02 2012 03:26 Yownine wrote: The USA is actually a republic, people throw the word democracy around like it makes us better than everyone. In a democracy people vote on issues, this is was not feasible with the size the the country and even with the technology today it is not realistic. The republic system allows people to vote for other people to vote for them, they believe this person will represent their views properly.
To be honest, I don't know what governmental system is best, or any of that. We are a great social experiment, for the rest of the world to watch and judge.
A lot of young people feel that way. I personally have a few friends who are adamant about not voting. The problem is you're always making a decision trying to pick the lesser of two evils but the fact is, ALL politicians are self centered, lying scum, it's just part of the job requirement.
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.
It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^
If you don't vote and you still complain, I have no sympathy for you. Plus, for what it's worth, engaging in discussions about why you're voting for someone can absolutely sway people's opinions.
I'm happy to engage in political debate and consider myself extremely informed on the subjects but I also understand basic statistics and game theory. The facts about the relationship between your vote and the outcome doesn't change depending upon how politically involved you feel you are.
And an individuals vote is actually pretty damn close to useless in the electoral system....
On March 02 2012 03:28 HappyChris wrote: The US electoral system is not really a democracy anymore. More like legalised corruption. Its sad really what has happend to US.
It's always been like that man. The founding fathers? A bunch of rich white dudes with slaves who wrote down some shit that made life better for them.
like it or not that's the system in place. it's more or less all you get. i know the urge to opt out is powerful, and feeling of powerlessness/hopelessness make participating the last thing you want to do...but sometimes what you want or feel like doing and what the best thing to do actually is are incongruent...
i think that if you actually want to change anything about how fucked up the system is, doing nothing...well, does nothing.
I love voting...unfortunately I refuse to vote for "The lesser of two evils". Thus I refuse to vote until I am offered a real choice. As it stands, all the candidates of the past 10 years+ have only differed on issues that had jack all to do with running a country. That is why nothing changes and things continue progressing down the path of destruction.
On March 02 2012 03:30 philosophize wrote: like it or not that's the system in place. it's more or less all you get. i know the urge to opt out is powerful, and feeling of powerlessness/hopelessness make participating the last thing you want to do...but sometimes what you want or feel like doing and what the best thing to do actually is are incongruent...
i think that if you actually want to change anything about how fucked up the system is, doing nothing...well, does nothing.
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.
On March 02 2012 03:28 HappyChris wrote: The US electoral system is not really a democracy anymore. More like legalised corruption. Its sad really what has happend to US.
I bet somebody said that same exact thing in 1912.
Actually, probably every year since George Washington left office...
If you dont think your vote can change anything, please go live in Vermont and ensure that Bernie Sanders gets reelected as often as possible. I have seen some american politicians and to be quite frank, they are sometimes not just uninformed or plain wrong - some seem to be really dangerous. Bernie fights not only for the middle class but for the people that really need help - the young, the old, the sick,the poor. Im sorry if I have overlooked someone else but he is my last hope in american politics.
What's really missing is an option on the ballot paper that says "none of the above".
I think atleast in Germany you can just mark two options to make your vote invalid, so your vote gets counted, but not for any politician/party; could be wrong though. Isnt that possible in the U.S. ?
Several obstacles must be removed for your vote to count as much as it should:
1) First-past-the-post voting system The first-past-the-post voting system means that the presence of a popular 'spoiler' candidate reduces the chance that the spoiler candidate's nearest rival will be elected. The solution is to use a different voting system, such as Runoff or Schulze.
2) The electoral college There is no good reason why this should exist. The sooner it is eliminated, the better. It renders giant swathes of votes irrelevant, and also incentivizes shady practices like temporarily moving to a different state to vote. It's just like gerrymandering, except it was set once and never changed.
3) Political parties The Founders made no provisions for political parties. However, they couldn't have forseen that the first-past-the-post voting system they chose makes a two-party system almost inevitable. Once the voting system is changed, the grasp of political parties should weaken.
4) Campaign funding When the largest campaign donors dictate the pool of candidates, it's highly unlikely those candidates will be representative of the majority of voters. A dramatic reformation is needed in this area to make funding both limited and transparent.
Yeah I'm not even registered to vote because the Electoral College chooses the President anyways. It just gives people the illisuion that they are the ones choosing when they're not.
That book has been pretty hotly criticized, it assumes that ("genetic") intelligence correlates with income, among other things.
Before stats start getting thrown about that indicate that people that score higher on IQ tests generally have higher education and statistically higher income, the point in the book was about 'genetic' IQ, or the supposed genetic basis for IQ without reference to any sociological factors, so the evidence doesn't really exist to support the conclusions.
I do not agree with nor do I support democracy and capitalism; I support a type of authoritarian Utopia. The current system doesn't elect who is right, it doesn't reward the most innovative, it does not protect the planet, and it most certainly isn't for the well being of people.
I will just set back and wait to see the collapse of the American economy and be the asshole to say, "I told you so".
On March 02 2012 03:45 Smat wrote: All of you people saying "voting doesn't matter, the president is elected by the electoral college anyway" need to go take a class in US government.
Where do you think I got my government hating ideas in the first place?
On March 02 2012 03:45 Smat wrote: All of you people saying "voting doesn't matter, the president is elected by the electoral college anyway" need to go take a class in US government.
Where do you think I got my government hating ideas in the first place?
This. Was funny as shit in my AP class when my teacher would say things like "Now this is illegal, the government can't do this" and I would say "So you're saying that beacuse it's illegal, then they won't do it and haven't done it? That's that saying it's illegal to kill someone so no one ever does it"
I used to have a similar view as the OP. I lived in the South, and the south will basically always vote republican no matter what. Why bother voting?
Here's the problem: if everyone has that mentality nothing will ever change. I'd consider myself fairly cynical. However, I'm not so cynical as to say that all the elections are rigged, no one actually counts votes, and it is all a big conspiracy. So if our votes actually do matter, it is up to us to change the system. While I certainly agree that the people in power make it hard to do this (this is how it has ALWAYS been, and ALWAYS will be. People in power always use their power to resist change, because change will usually result in a loss of their power. It is nothing new, people have always been that way and probably always will be. I don't even really blame them for it). The system is screwed up because people did nothing and let it get to this state. So doing nothing is going to fix it?
Bullshit. Get out there and at least vote. It is the least you can do. And really you (and I) should be doing much more than that. Last presidential election was the first I voted in, and the state I lived in actually came surprisingly close to going to Obama (it still went red, but it was closer than it had been in years). I'm not saying my vote did that, but I think enough people stopped being cyncial to actually turn out and vote, at least for a small time. Change isn't easy. People give up because it doesn't rain twenties the second they go vote for someone and that someone wins. The people resisting change have a lot at stake and a lot of power to resist change. That doesn't mean change can't happen, however, and if history has taught me anything, it is that change is inevitable. What that change means is up to us to shape.
On March 02 2012 03:28 HappyChris wrote: The US electoral system is not really a democracy anymore. More like legalised corruption. Its sad really what has happend to US.
I bet somebody said that same exact thing in 1912.
Actually, probably every year since George Washington left office...
Not really but you hole political system has changed. Dwight D. Eisenhower would have been a democrat today since you political views has gone so fare right its allmost insane.
USA was an amasing country from 1940 to 60 but then something happend. And well you middleclass will continoue to die unless something drastic happend I just dont see it considering the elite controls everything from media to the art of printing money!
I mean you seem upset that money and effort matter more in an election than any 1 individual vote. I feel like that statement has and will always be true, how could it be any other way? But then you state that no matter what you do; the political leaning of your state is immobile. As though those 2 statements are interconnected. I disagree
I think Marco Rubio is a perfect example of a politician using his means and effort to change the political leaning of a state/population in a positive way. If you aren't familiar Rubio is Cuban American republican senator from Florida with influence NEVER seen in a freshman senator. He was the one who told the R Primary candidates to chill out with the offense Immigration talk, and they all listened. He's given the conservative Cuban population (which is massive and previously not represented because they all voted Dem, because the old FL republican guard was pretty anti Cuban)
If you are upset that your 1 single vote isn't having a big enough impact, then put some effort into it. I think the amount of effort it takes to vote (none) is perfectly equal to the amount of power in a single vote (none). Now if you can use the effort of 1 person (you) and work hard, then the amount of change you create should be pretty equal to the effort you put in (Rubio put in a ton of effort and changed the entire landscape of Florida Politics)
Maybe I'm just missing your point, but if you think ONLY the super rich can play in state/federal politics I think you are very incorrect. Yes you need probably close to a 7 figure budget to win a senate seat, and probably 50x that to win a presidential race, but that doesn't mean your net worth has to be in the ultra rich/mogul category, or even that you need them in your pocket to win. And State senator/representative campaigns can be run on a tenth or less than a federal senate campaign.
I see money and effort as more or less analogous (as does the supreme court lololol citizens united joke). So if you are dissatisfied with your impact on the political system, put more effort into it. If you're ultra rich its easy because you already put in effort to get tons of cash , just pay 50k to watch Obama eat dinner. If you aren't then you need to put some man hours in campaigning; going door to door, making phone calls, setting up town hall meetings, whatever. But to think there is a way to eliminate money from politics, and that that would somehow increase the weight of any 1 individual vote, is a pretty naive point of view, and not one that fruitful discussion can come from Imo.
On March 02 2012 03:52 HardlyNever wrote: I used to have a similar view as the OP. I lived in the South, and the south will basically always vote republican no matter what. Why bother voting?
Here's the problem: if everyone has that mentality nothing will ever change. I'd consider myself fairly cynical. However, I'm not so cynical as to say that all the elections are rigged, no one actually counts votes, and it is all a big conspiracy. So if our votes actually do matter, it is up to us to change the system. While I certainly agree that the people in power make it hard to do this (this is how it has ALWAYS been, and ALWAYS will be. People in power always use their power to resist change, because change will usually result in a loss of their power. It is nothing new, people have always been that way and probably always will be. I don't even really blame them for it). The system is screwed up because people did nothing and let it get to this state. So doing nothing is going to fix it?
Bullshit. Get out there and at least vote. It is the least you can do. And really you (and I) should be doing much more than that. Last presidential election was the first I voted in, and the state I lived in actually came surprisingly close to going to Obama (it still went red, but it was closer than it had been in years). I'm not saying my vote did that, but I think enough people stopped being cyncial to actually turn out and vote, at least for a small time. Change isn't easy. People give up because it doesn't rain twenties the second they go vote for someone and that someone wins. The people resisting change have a lot at stake and a lot of power to resist change. That doesn't mean change can't happen, however, and if history has taught me anything, it is that change is inevitable. What that change means is up to us to shape.
I think change will require some sort of catalyst, like an addict hitting rock-bottom before recovery can begin. Maybe something along the lines of Great Depression, 2nd edition? I don't think voting, protesting, or any other thing an individual can do will make a difference.
I can't see how you can complain about not having a voice when you refuse to exercise it. Believe it or not, representatives will listen to their constituents if you have actually contact them, or organize opposition/support for a measure.
Democracy is not a passive system, you have to be involved for it to work correctly. The reason that interest groups and the monied class are having such an easy time pursuing their agenda is because they have no counter balance. If you think the system isn't working for you then you have a responsibility to change it. Go vote. Start a petition. Do something other than create a forum post for something that has been discussed ad nauseum.
I vote because I feel that if you dont, you have no business voicing your political opinion. If you dont even do that simple duty, you shouldnt be taken seriously. If someone tells me they dont vote, and then proceeds to wail about political injustices, its like "why should I listen to you, you obviously dont really care about your position or you would vote your mind".
tahts why you clean house every 12 years like Thomas jefferson said.
if the people don't like it (what was OWS about again?), they should have the right to march right into the white house or any capitol government buiilding and tell the politicians to gtfo. What do you think greece did? And yes, it got violent, because even if its the citizens right to tell them to leave, they'll turn on you and use armed forces to fight you.
its all been about power all along. fancy that. Now maybe we can see where all the crazy and cruel laws come from.
From an outside PoV I feel that the US democracy is greatly held back by 2 major factors: The 2-party-system and the winner-takes-it-all practice that comes with the electoral college. These two things maintain eachother and neither is beneficial for a healthy democracy.
New parties have no chance of getting a foot in the door at the federal level, as they need the monumental accomplishment of winning out in an entire state. That means that people are stuck with democrats and republicans, who each only supply a single candidate for the presedential elections. So a lot of people are basically forced to choose the lesser of two evils ("Do I vote for the guy that is on the other side of the political spectrum or the guy that's on the same side as me, but who is batshit insane?").
Most European democracies form a government by coalition of 2 or 3 parties. Most countries have 5 or more reasonable parties to choose from (i.e. not 1-issue-parties), which means that it's way easier to finding a party that you agree with on most points. New parties will only get a handful of seats in the relevant house/senate/congress/whatever-it's-called, but that's enough for them to make their voice heard and to grow their influence if they are well-liked.
The coalition-style setup has the added benefit of dampening the more extreme sides of each party. With one party ruling, they can hammer through whatever they want. When you have to compromise, you usually come to solutions that are acceptable for a larger part of the population.
Finally, the electoral college means that if you're in a republican state there's literally no point in voting as a democrat and vice versa. Since the weight of each state doesn't reflect its current population, votes in some states are simply worth more than others.
tdlr: Get rid of the winner-takes-it-all electoral college and ensure that new parties have a chance to compete in elections without the current "entry barrier" of having to win an entire state.
I'm in the same boat OP. I'm ashamed of it, though I can't say why. There's a lot of guilt heaped on you that "if you don't vote, it's your fault if idiot gets elected" etc. But I believe as you do that my vote is pretty much meaningless. The powerful and wealthy put on a big, elaborate show to be entertaining and give the illusion of the rest of us being involved... but I'd rather not participate in the show.
On March 02 2012 03:56 stokes17 wrote: I mean you seem upset that money and effort matter more in an election than any 1 individual vote. I feel like that statement has and will always be true, how could it be any other way? But then you state that no matter what you do; the political leaning of your state is immobile. As though those 2 statements are interconnected. I disagree
I think Marco Rubio is a perfect example of a politician using his means and effort to change the political leaning of a state/population in a positive way. If you aren't familiar Rubio is Cuban American republican senator from Florida with influence NEVER seen in a freshman senator. He was the one who told the R Primary candidates to chill out with the offense Immigration talk, and they all listened. He's given the conservative Cuban population (which is massive and previously not represented because they all voted Dem, because the old FL republican guard was pretty anti Cuban)
If you are upset that your 1 single vote isn't having a big enough impact, then put some effort into it. I think the amount of effort it takes to vote (none) is perfectly equal to the amount of power in a single vote (none). Now if you can use the effort of 1 person (you) and work hard, then the amount of change you create should be pretty equal to the effort you put in (Rubio put in a ton of effort and changed the entire landscape of Florida Politics)
Maybe I'm just missing your point, but if you think ONLY the super rich can play in state/federal politics I think you are very incorrect. Yes you need probably close to a 7 figure budget to win a senate seat, and probably 50x that to win a presidential race, but that doesn't mean your net worth has to be in the ultra rich/mogul category, or even that you need them in your pocket to win. And State senator/representative campaigns can be run on a tenth or less than a federal senate campaign.
I see money and effort as more or less analogous (as does the supreme court lololol citizens united joke). So if you are dissatisfied with your impact on the political system, put more effort into it. If you're ultra rich its easy because you already put in effort to get tons of cash , just pay 50k to watch Obama eat dinner. If you aren't then you need to put some man hours in campaigning; going door to door, making phone calls, setting up town hall meetings, whatever. But to think there is a way to eliminate money from politics, and that that would somehow increase the weight of any 1 individual vote, is a pretty naive point of view, and not one that fruitful discussion can come from Imo.
Ok.
My position isn't that my vote isn't important enough (even though you say yourself that 'amount of a power in a single vote (none)). It's that money is the deciding factor when it comes to policy making.
I feel like we agree here, because you say that you 'need probably close to a 7 figure budge to win a senate seat, and probably 50x that to win a presidential race'. Somebody is paying that money, and you can be damn sure that they are spending to support their own interests.
Marco Rubio sounds great. There are certainly people in political positions who work for what they think is right, and are not driven by money. But what have they done? Rubio got the candidates to 'chill out with the offensive immigration talk'. Cool. Meanwhile, thousands of immigrants are deported/rejected every day and there's a big fucking wall guarded by snipers. The elite are still making the decisions.
What's really missing is an option on the ballot paper that says "none of the above".
I think atleast in Germany you can just mark two options to make your vote invalid, so your vote gets counted, but not for any politician/party; could be wrong though. Isnt that possible in the U.S. ?
Well, everybody should be able to hand in an invalid ballot, no matter where they vote. However, that doesn't address the problem I was talking about - once again, you'd be unable to distinguish between those who reject the options and the truly "invalid" votes.
Yeah, OP, I feel the same you do. Don't wanna sound like I'm nation bashing because I'm not, but I think the system is even worse in the US than it is up here in Canada. The choice associated with the predominantly 2 party system is much more an illusion in the US because of how powerful corporate interests are. The public can vote which front man gets to represent the corporate ownership of government. I suppose there are still some important differences between the parties, but it's getting to the point where your hands are tied as a leader. Poor Obama, I think he really tried his best. I also hate how certain issues have so much sway among voters. Why bother going out and voting when so much of the nation will vote for the guy who doesn't like gays, or the guy who talks about his faith, or the guy that makes a video of himself with a gun riding a horse. The whole thing pisses me off.
I can't vote, so I just give money to political action committees instead. Even the modest amounts I can spare probably has way more of an effect than voting ever would.
On March 02 2012 03:56 partisan wrote: I can't see how you can complain about not having a voice when you refuse to exercise it. Believe it or not, representatives will listen to their constituents if you have actually contact them, or organize opposition/support for a measure.
Democracy is not a passive system, you have to be involved for it to work correctly. The reason that interest groups and the monied class are having such an easy time pursuing their agenda is because they have no counter balance. If you think the system isn't working for you then you have a responsibility to change it. Go vote. Start a petition. Do something other than create a forum post for something that has been discussed ad nauseum.
I understand what you're saying, I've definitely heard it before
But like I brought up earlier, what can I realistically do?
Vote: In my state, my votes for democrat candidates is doomed to failure. Period. I will make, at best, an infinitesimally small impact.
Protest: How much did the 99% protesters accomplish? How about when I protested again the Iraq war back in 2005? The best example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that shit involved tens of millions of people and 300 years.
Work in Politics: I already have a career, so not really realistic. But, if I did, how successful would I really be? I have no wealth, and no connections. I could fight tooth and nail for the next 20 years, but I don't think my dreams and good intentions would make up for it.
Let's pretend I voted last election. What would you say to my statements then?
I think, ironically, the idea that we have little to no power is an illusion. Local government doesn't get much glamour, but municipal government actually has the vast majority of power in our country. Yes, there are some monolithic structures in our country (like our defense system, wars, etc) which frankly fall outside of our ability to change. But if you really look at it, there are significant differences in the ways that municipalities and states are run. The mayor of the cities Chicago and NY may be the most powerful men in our country. They actually wield power, and their political ideas (I know this is ironic as corruption is rampant in both cities) really get through. Furthermore, most money spent is on a state/municipal level.
The big budget battles are over the size of the grants given to the states and cities. When the federal government assigns (not citing anything here, just throwing out a number) say 200 million in money to "combat poverty", the states really have a lot of control to exercise.
Another point for voting. Support gay marriage? Nothing will happen on the federal level for a long time (maybe never!). But states that elect democractic legislatures by and large are legalizing gay marriage.
TL;DR: Nothing changes on a national scale pretty much ever because we live in an age of technocratic beauracracy. BUT, do not underestimate the power local politicians have, however meager it may seem.
I didn't vote in the primaries a few days ago becuase I have literally no clue about any of the politicians right now. The whole two party system is just getting annoying and I feel like I'm watching two rival football fans yell at each other. So I've just stopped caring for the most part. Weird how I paid attention when I couldn't vote, and now that I can I've been apathetic towards it all.
It's a real shame too, but most people in America don't realize the power of voting and democracy because we've always had it. When I visited Italy, my friend's cousin was talking about how Italy had such a high voting turn out because they don't want another Mussolini to deal with.
And yeah, the electoral college is pretty retarded too.
On March 02 2012 03:58 Rannasha wrote: From an outside PoV I feel that the US democracy is greatly held back by 2 major factors: The 2-party-system and the winner-takes-it-all practice that comes with the electoral college. These two things maintain eachother and neither is beneficial for a healthy democracy.
New parties have no chance of getting a foot in the door at the federal level, as they need the monumental accomplishment of winning out in an entire state. That means that people are stuck with democrats and republicans, who each only supply a single candidate for the presedential elections. So a lot of people are basically forced to choose the lesser of two evils ("Do I vote for the guy that is on the other side of the political spectrum or the guy that's on the same side as me, but who is batshit insane?").
Most European democracies form a government by coalition of 2 or 3 parties. Most countries have 5 or more reasonable parties to choose from (i.e. not 1-issue-parties), which means that it's way easier to finding a party that you agree with on most points. New parties will only get a handful of seats in the relevant house/senate/congress/whatever-it's-called, but that's enough for them to make their voice heard and to grow their influence if they are well-liked.
The coalition-style setup has the added benefit of dampening the more extreme sides of each party. With one party ruling, they can hammer through whatever they want. When you have to compromise, you usually come to solutions that are acceptable for a larger part of the population.
Finally, the electoral college means that if you're in a republican state there's literally no point in voting as a democrat and vice versa. Since the weight of each state doesn't reflect its current population, votes in some states are simply worth more than others.
tdlr: Get rid of the winner-takes-it-all electoral college and ensure that new parties have a chance to compete in elections without the current "entry barrier" of having to win an entire state.
Well I'll address your TLDR first, its extremely rare for a president to win the general vote and lose the electoral vote, so... that wouldn't change the outcome of many elections. Further, only 1 election every 4 years uses the electoral college, there are thousands of state level elections and hundreds of federal elections that use the general vote to reach their victor. So your 1st point wouldn't really have an impact on the outcome of elections AND require a constitutional amendment which is a PAIN to do; so I don't think it really makes sense
Your point about the 2 party system is more relevant. Its not that there have never been 3rd party movements in America, the populist movement in the 20's led to major changes that are still evident today (direct election of senators, income tax, etc) Its true that since then a true 3rd party has not won any significant elections. BUT, you are completely undervaluing the inparty diversity that is present in America. The republican party in the Congress at the moment includes everyone from Marco Rubio who is a moderate Cuban American, To Ron Paul who is an extreme libertarian, to Jim Bohener who is an old school no tax increase red blooded traditional republican, to Michelle Bauchman who is a staunch tea party-er with extreme views.
This process of having major diversity within the two major parties has basically replaced the 3rd party system while accomplishing the same goals. I think comparing the Tea party to the Populist Movement is a completely valid comparison. I see a tea party R vs a moderate R election as basically a race between 2 separate parties with completely different agendas and values.
So yea, I don't think your suggestions would change much.
1. The vast majority of campaign money comes from small donations. Please don't be an ignorant fuck. Obama could raise as much as 1 billion in this next election and the money coming from the Super PAC might be 100 million.
"Religions collect hundreds of billions annually, tax-free mind you, and then turn around and pump that money right back into congress." Wut.
I don't understand this anti-incorporation nonsense. So you're saying that one person has a right to express their opinion but a group of people don't? I suspect this phrase just gets parroted and nobody really thinks about it at all.
2. There are lots of explanations for low voter turnout other than general ignorance or apathy. Political parties in the U.S. have muck weaker associations compared to those in Europe. The goal of campaigns in U.S. elections is 'persuasion' rather than 'mobilization', and, of course, the parties just aren't as strong so mobilization is fairly weak. It isn't always like this and there have been different cycles with more or less mobilization.
3. Democracy vs Republic: Who cares? A better description of the government would be a mixed government, with monarchical (executive), aristocratic (supreme court), and democratic (Congress). You vote for all of them in different ways to prevent one element of society or government from becoming too powerful.
Removing the electoral college would make it a pure democracy. Remove the electoral college so we can have a tyranny of the majority and make lots of votes not count!
4. So I've just gone over a bunch of reasons why voting in the U.S. works, but what seems to be the problem? The OP did say it. The inmates are running the asylum, only the inmates are you (and your parents and family and friends and everyone else of course). So you go out and vote and when you don't get your way, since you don't actually know a lot about politics, you concoct a bunch of reasons why your opinion wasn't ratified: The system is broken and controlled by elites. Everyone else is brainwashed. The opposition is evil and insincere. The rationalizations of an immature mind that can't seem to understand why not everyone agrees with them.
And, of course, the irony is that you are the majority and still complaining. The Democrats have been a 8-25% majority since the 1940s, yet why do they act like they are always in the minority? Why do you attack Fox News exclusively even though its viewpoints are vastly underrepresented in the media? Because you aren't interested in democratic process or a balanced government, you're interested in having your ideology implemented on a national scale. How do you stage a revolution from the top, though? The audience that is being pandered to is you.
On March 02 2012 04:12 Pyskee wrote: I didn't vote in the primaries a few days ago becuase I have literally no clue about any of the politicians right now. The whole two party system is just getting annoying and I feel like I'm watching two rival football fans yell at each other. So I've just stopped caring for the most part. Weird how I paid attention when I couldn't vote, and now that I can I've been apathetic towards it all.
It's a real shame too, but most people in America don't realize the power of voting and democracy because we've always had it. When I visited Italy, my friend's cousin was talking about how Italy had such a high voting turn out because they don't want another Mussolini to deal with.
And yeah, the electoral college is pretty retarded too.
what does the 2 party system have to do with a primary election?
What does the electoral college have to do with a primary election?
How can you say you don't have a clue then make baseless judgements?
I'm not a zoologist but I think American Conservation is pretty retarded.... doesn't make any sense man
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.
It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^
This is one of the worst arguments currently cataloged on planet Earth.
You don't earn the right to complain about arrogant, incompetent, corrupt, immoral stupidity as a citizen, and if even you did what makes you think voting would earn you that right? Let me explain something to you. There are people who devote themselves selflessly to their fellow man and honor a citizenship of the world day in and day out. There are people who work to promote positive change both nationally and internationally through channels other than voting.
So let me get your position straight. The selfish ignorant jackass who only wants to earn a paycheck, drive his truck around, and shoot animals on the weekend but votes for the anti gay party once every 4 years (ignoring other issues) has a right to complain, but the guy who works toward improving society and helping his fellow man day in and day out (and perhaps exercised his right to protest by foregoing voting) has no right to complain?
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.
On March 02 2012 04:15 Jerubaal wrote: Oh boy, lots of points...
1. The vast majority of campaign money comes from small donations. Please don't be an ignorant fuck. Obama could raise as much as 1 billion in this next election and the money coming from the Super PAC might be 100 million.
"Religions collect hundreds of billions annually, tax-free mind you, and then turn around and pump that money right back into congress." Wut.
I don't understand this anti-incorporation nonsense. So you're saying that one person has a right to express their opinion but a group of people don't? I suspect this phrase just gets parroted and nobody really thinks about it at all.
2. There are lots of explanations for low voter turnout other than general ignorance or apathy. Political parties in the U.S. have muck weaker associations compared to those in Europe. The goal of campaigns in U.S. elections is 'persuasion' rather than 'mobilization', and, of course, the parties just aren't as strong so mobilization is fairly weak. It isn't always like this and there have been different cycles with more or less mobilization.
3. Democracy vs Republic: Who cares? A better description of the government would be a mixed government, with monarchical (executive), aristocratic (supreme court), and democratic (Congress). You vote for all of them in different ways to prevent one element of society or government from becoming too powerful.
Removing the electoral college would make it a pure democracy. Remove the electoral college so we can have a tyranny of the majority and make lots of votes not count!
4. So I've just gone over a bunch of reasons why voting in the U.S. works, but what seems to be the problem? The OP did say it. The inmates are running the asylum, only the inmates are you (and your parents and family and friends and everyone else of course). So you go out and vote and when you don't get your way, since you don't actually know a lot about politics, you concoct a bunch of reasons why your opinion wasn't ratified: The system is broken and controlled by elites. Everyone else is brainwashed. The opposition is evil and insincere. The rationalizations of an immature mind that can't seem to understand why not everyone agrees with them.
And, of course, the irony is that you are the majority and still complaining. The Democrats have been a 8-25% majority since the 1940s, yet why do they act like they are always in the minority? Why do you attack Fox News exclusively even though its viewpoints are vastly underrepresented in the media? Because you aren't interested in democratic process or a balanced government, you're interested in having your ideology implemented on a national scale. How do you stage a revolution from the top, though? The audience that is being pandered to is you.
OMG, someone who has a clue, nice to meet you ^^
except FOX news and every other 24 hour news organization run in a similar fashion does deserve to be attacked because they bear the majority of the blame for the ABSURD watering down of political dialogue. Their Motto is basically: If it can't be said in 30 seconds with a clear villain and hero; it can't be said at all.
imho 24 hour news media will be the downfall of the US Political System, if anything is going to be.... its disgusting
On March 02 2012 04:15 Jerubaal wrote: Oh boy, lots of points...
1. The vast majority of campaign money comes from small donations. Please don't be an ignorant fuck. Obama could raise as much as 1 billion in this next election and the money coming from the Super PAC might be 100 million.
"Religions collect hundreds of billions annually, tax-free mind you, and then turn around and pump that money right back into congress." Wut.
I don't understand this anti-incorporation nonsense. So you're saying that one person has a right to express their opinion but a group of people don't? I suspect this phrase just gets parroted and nobody really thinks about it at all.
2. There are lots of explanations for low voter turnout other than general ignorance or apathy. Political parties in the U.S. have muck weaker associations compared to those in Europe. The goal of campaigns in U.S. elections is 'persuasion' rather than 'mobilization', and, of course, the parties just aren't as strong so mobilization is fairly weak. It isn't always like this and there have been different cycles with more or less mobilization.
3. Democracy vs Republic: Who cares? A better description of the government would be a mixed government, with monarchical (executive), aristocratic (supreme court), and democratic (Congress). You vote for all of them in different ways to prevent one element of society or government from becoming too powerful.
Removing the electoral college would make it a pure democracy. Remove the electoral college so we can have a tyranny of the majority and make lots of votes not count!
4. So I've just gone over a bunch of reasons why voting in the U.S. works, but what seems to be the problem? The OP did say it. The inmates are running the asylum, only the inmates are you (and your parents and family and friends and everyone else of course). So you go out and vote and when you don't get your way, since you don't actually know a lot about politics, you concoct a bunch of reasons why your opinion wasn't ratified: The system is broken and controlled by elites. Everyone else is brainwashed. The opposition is evil and insincere. The rationalizations of an immature mind that can't seem to understand why not everyone agrees with them.
And, of course, the irony is that you are the majority and still complaining. The Democrats have been a 8-25% majority since the 1940s, yet why do they act like they are always in the minority? Why do you attack Fox News exclusively even though its viewpoints are vastly underrepresented in the media? Because you aren't interested in democratic process or a balanced government, you're interested in having your ideology implemented on a national scale. How do you stage a revolution from the top, though? The audience that is being pandered to is you.
Ok, mean-face.
There are laws that limit the amount one person/company can donate to a campaign. So, if somebody wants to donate above that amount, they split it into many small payments, so its not illegal. That's why there are lots of little contributions.
Why do I think my vote should count more than a group of people's votes? I don't. What I am saying, is that certain groups/individuals control the majority of the money that elects candidates. I am against the rich have a larger voice than those who have less money.
You quoted me as saying something about asylum being run by the inmates. That was not me As for the rest of your assumptions about me, they are not correct. Please play nice.
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
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
You SHOULD lose rights... voting is one of the only things that separates you from a dictatorship. Furthermore, I cannot believe an American started this thread...
Even if you dont vote, the very fact that the people can influences more challengers to run for election so we dont get one family stuck in there doing whatever they want. Honestly, there has been tons of blood spilled for you to have that RIGHT. Go use it and stop whining when the other person wins your state.
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.
There is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's? This isn't logical, of course there's a connection. This isn't people going into a voting booth knowing nothing and closing their eyes and pushing a button.
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
I don't want to sound patronizing, but I think it would be nice if everyone in the thread made a point to not get too heated. Politics are emotional but rage-induced rants aren't very fun
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. Seriously? What happened to separation of church and state? The rest of the Republican candidates are completely repulsive to me, and Obama is just meh.
Anti-abortion has nothing to do with religion. Most religions just happens to be against it.
makes me glad to see that alot of others realize the corruption and idiocy that the entire electoral (and the federal govt in general) process is. why have a popular vote when the electoral college is picked completely separately and those votes are the only ones that matter?
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I would of voted in the Arizona primary last tuesday, but the fucking republicans are either crazy religous which I don't want a president like that. Or just crazy, can anyone say moon base? hahah the only person i thought of voting for was ron paul, but some of his views and just ways he wants to run government isnt really for me. hopefully in another 4 years there will be a presidential candidate that is actually appealing for me.
Voting is the best way to influence the government. There are plenty of close elections. Rick Santorum won the Iowa Caucus by 34 votes, that's it.
Elected officials can only get away with what their constituents let them. As for voter ignorance, yes that's a problem, but in my opinion there's no better alternative than letting everyone vote.
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
My OP was me expressing an opinion of what I thought. If you're interested in knowing what I think about 'making a difference', please refer to my previous two posts where I outline my feelings about that.
On March 02 2012 04:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote: I don't want to sound patronizing, but I think it would be nice if everyone in the thread made a point to not get too heated. Politics are emotional but rage-induced rants aren't very fun
That's a pretty inflammatory post about your personal views on a subject that have no real logical heft behind them to be asking for calm rational discussion, isn't it?
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
On March 02 2012 04:26 mynameisgreat11 wrote: I don't want to sound patronizing, but I think it would be nice if everyone in the thread made a point to not get too heated. Politics are emotional but rage-induced rants aren't very fun
That's a pretty inflammatory post about your personal views on a subject that have no real logical heft behind them to be asking for calm rational discussion, isn't it?
I tried to stay civil. I'm sorry if I offended you.
I've struggled with this as well. When I first reached voting age for a presidential election, I was so excited. I did a ton of research, bought signs to hang up, etc. I voted for George W. Bush. Then he wrecked everything and squeezed this country dry. I felt a lot of regret about that, and it upturned my views on politics and my own political alignment.
In the 2008 election, I didn't even vote. It was partly because my girlfriend had just broken up with me and I was depressed, but also because I didn't care anymore. I would have probably voted for Obama, but if I had, nothing would be different. Same for this upcoming election. (Insert Republican Here) will win this state no matter what I do. People tell me that my vote is my most powerful voice in this country, but that baffles me sometimes. I get the general idea of that, but... my vote would not have enacted any change in 2008 and it won't in 2012... where is the power there? I don't see my voice heard until CNN flips the electoral map to reveal the Popular Vote results for my state, which don't matter in the election.
I'm glad we have the right to vote, but the system is incredibly frustrating right now
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
he doesn't vote but feels the need to tell people he didn't vote and that he doesn't like the people that are running our country
There are laws that limit the amount one person/company can donate to a campaign. So, if somebody wants to donate above that amount, they split it into many small payments, so its not illegal. That's why there are lots of little contributions.
No, it's incredibly illegal for people to split donations into small payments. Direct donations to a campaign cannot exceed 2,500$ per election (so in reality 5,000$ between primary and general election). Not that the FEC does much about campaign finance fraud, but don't say it's legal.
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.
And this is why the system will always be flawed.
Poor America
Well hes from the UK, so really hes just bitter about losing the American Revolution. Silly grudge holding red coats. He lashes out against our superior government because the tea and crumpet gorge fest can't stem the tide of his over bearing depression brought on by the loss of the empire.
To any one who has played eve with the man, kwark rage rants are actually him venting over these same frustrations.
But in all seriousness, thats one of the worst arguments I've ever heard from kwark. I absolutely hate when people attempt to to take their idea, dumb or not, and add in words like "I understand game theory or any other vaguely related discipline" "Statistically....." its always just a thinly veiled attempt to hide a lack of citations of support with an attempt to make yourself sound like an authoritative source.
Hell, I could say statistically, the guy with the most electoral votes wins the presidential race. Thus voting is important because it influences the distribution of electoral votes. My vote shares a deep connection with others that choose not to vote because it greatly increases the the individual representation of my vote when they choose not to. The best part is when I go vote for a complete nutter, those who don't vote will never have the chance to counter balance my vote for Mr Nutter. This is the greatest satisfaction from voting, I am contributing to the cause of voting in a candidate of my choosing, and people aren't opposing my vote.
Comes off about as wishy washy as your argument and I even used most of the same statements.
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
We might not have the best equality of result in the world, but we have the best equality of opportunity known to man, and for me, that's the only thing that counts.
There are laws that limit the amount one person/company can donate to a campaign. So, if somebody wants to donate above that amount, they split it into many small payments, so its not illegal. That's why there are lots of little contributions.
No, it's incredibly illegal for people to split donations into small payments. Direct donations to a campaign cannot exceed 2,500$ per election (so in reality 5,000$ between primary and general election). Not that the FEC does much about campaign finance fraud, but don't say it's legal.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, its illegal, but it happens all the time. Result is the same --> Rich exert more political influence than poor.
This discusssion is stupid! Just vote for the ideas you think may change ur contry, believe in the person you vote for. I've studied the elections system in USA in class and i've been in 2 americans family for 4 month. It's like people only think about themselves, their little life, their family, their social place is all for them. It's just the consequence of letting some fucking liberal guys (the religious thing is so funny, it's like they can do what they want as long as they pray! lol they should read more about the holy book) govern ur country. I'm not afraid of writing that all the republicans are rotten to the core. I'm not afraid of writting that the model ur republicans created is as bad as communism in URSS. It's speculation that can make country fall like Greece (thx goldman sax) and traders. Ur republicans are heads of compagnies and it's not possible to govern like that, u cant make properr decision like that. They only act for USA economy not for their people. You know i would have been glad if Obama was president of France. I see all the critics about him about being indecisive and that's so funny. He passed more laws than Bush and still people aint happy about it. The congres has never been with him since the beginning. And with the pressure of all these compagnies changement is a dream. The thing i know for sure is that american should get out of their shitty place and try to meet people from other social classes and i've never seen that ever on tv or in real life. Voting in USA is just about if u want things to change (democrate) or not (republicans).
Sorry if i was excessive and i ain't taking my country as an exemple but it's still way better than how USA works.
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
I would just like to point out that SOPA is a bad example, it's one of those laws that, they knew was not going to pass, but by proposing something so ridiculous, they can then propose another law that's " not as bad IN COMPARAISON " but still pretty much violates and removes any freedom whatsoever on the internet. They already had PIPA prepared anyway, just in case. As soon as you add key words like " child porn " or " terrorist " you can pretty much label anything as evil in people's mind, even if it is completely unrelated to child porn and terrorism.
Sorry for not having much more to say on the matter.
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
Obviously these problems exist here, but they do in everyother country also. And it easily proven that America is the best country but I won't go into that since it appears you are in denial for some reason. The United States has never done wrong towards me (except maby being a lil bit to harsh on da herb) and I feel like I owe everything I have to this country. So voting is the least I can do.
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
We might not have the best equality of result in the world, but we have the best equality of opportunity known to man, and for me, that's the only thing that counts.
I don't think that's actually true. The public school system is really bad in a lot of areas. Education is really the only way for people who have descended from poverty to get out of it.
I'd say reword it to say that America has the best opportunities in the world... if you can afford them.
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
Obviously these problems exist here, but they do in everyother country also. And it easily proven that America is the best country but I won't go into that since it appears you are in denial for some reason. The United States has never done wrong towards me (except maby being a lil bit to harsh on da herb) and I feel like I owe everything I have to this country. So voting is the least I can do.
Slavery and the genocide of the Native Americans was kind of a bummer.
But hey, if you're down with da herb, I probably like you anyway, let's hang out.
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
And it easily proven that America is the best country
I agree America is a great nation in many ways, but there are many great nations. I'd be interested in hearing your proof.
I vote on local, but bc I live in the most liberal part of the state of California I know the Dems will carry the state regardless of my actions (and I'd vote for them anyways lol). Agree with OP, unless in swing state like Ohio or Virginia voting for nation/state is useless, and even county/local is usually a bygone affair.
There are laws that limit the amount one person/company can donate to a campaign. So, if somebody wants to donate above that amount, they split it into many small payments, so its not illegal. That's why there are lots of little contributions.
No, it's incredibly illegal for people to split donations into small payments. Direct donations to a campaign cannot exceed 2,500$ per election (so in reality 5,000$ between primary and general election). Not that the FEC does much about campaign finance fraud, but don't say it's legal.
Ok, its illegal, but it happens all the time. Result is the same --> Rich exert more political influence than poor. [/QUOTE]
You keep saying that but its not terribly true. Like if you exclude people who just woke up with a billion dollars (the paris hiltons of the world; who honestly probably don't give a fuck about politics) People have influence in politics due to effort. If you don't have a tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to donate, then get your feet on the ground and work like people have been working to get elected in this country for 200 years. If you and your guy are good, the money will find you. Like yea if you're running for state representative you'll need some upfront to start in the order of idn ~$7-10k, but county level elections can be done for a fraction of that.
EDIT: something fucked up in the formatting, I am responding to the rich exert influence statement, not making it.
And Citizens United "solved" the problem of donation caps, so there is no point in even discussing it.
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
We might not have the best equality of result in the world, but we have the best equality of opportunity known to man, and for me, that's the only thing that counts.
I don't think that's actually true. The public school system is really bad in a lot of areas. Education is really the only way for people who have descended from poverty to get out of it.
I'd say reword it to say that America has the best opportunities in the world... if you can afford them.
According to the Human Development Index I believe we're 3rd in the world right now. Also considering only 50% of people stay in their same bracket (socioeconomic bracket cut into 5 layers) every decade, I would consider that a good sign (according to Dye).
For education, yes it's bad and that's why it needs reform. The rich are going to have their "elite" education anyways, there's no stopping it.
On March 02 2012 03:18 NotSorry wrote: I vote on smaller topics that will effect me locally/statewide, I will vote on governors and senate seats but I feel things like presidents are already decided in each state due to the joke of a system that is the electoral college, sure there are some states still up for grabs but there are many states that have been overwhelmingly Red or Blue since the beginning of the electoral college such as my home state as such I don't bother to vote.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
I really don't want 100 million people with IQs of less than 100 making the difference in the election. We'll end up even worse off.
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
On March 02 2012 04:15 Jerubaal wrote: Oh boy, lots of points...
1. The vast majority of campaign money comes from small donations. Please don't be an ignorant fuck. Obama could raise as much as 1 billion in this next election and the money coming from the Super PAC might be 100 million.
"Religions collect hundreds of billions annually, tax-free mind you, and then turn around and pump that money right back into congress." Wut.
I don't understand this anti-incorporation nonsense. So you're saying that one person has a right to express their opinion but a group of people don't? I suspect this phrase just gets parroted and nobody really thinks about it at all.
2. There are lots of explanations for low voter turnout other than general ignorance or apathy. Political parties in the U.S. have muck weaker associations compared to those in Europe. The goal of campaigns in U.S. elections is 'persuasion' rather than 'mobilization', and, of course, the parties just aren't as strong so mobilization is fairly weak. It isn't always like this and there have been different cycles with more or less mobilization.
3. Democracy vs Republic: Who cares? A better description of the government would be a mixed government, with monarchical (executive), aristocratic (supreme court), and democratic (Congress). You vote for all of them in different ways to prevent one element of society or government from becoming too powerful.
Removing the electoral college would make it a pure democracy. Remove the electoral college so we can have a tyranny of the majority and make lots of votes not count!
4. So I've just gone over a bunch of reasons why voting in the U.S. works, but what seems to be the problem? The OP did say it. The inmates are running the asylum, only the inmates are you (and your parents and family and friends and everyone else of course). So you go out and vote and when you don't get your way, since you don't actually know a lot about politics, you concoct a bunch of reasons why your opinion wasn't ratified: The system is broken and controlled by elites. Everyone else is brainwashed. The opposition is evil and insincere. The rationalizations of an immature mind that can't seem to understand why not everyone agrees with them.
And, of course, the irony is that you are the majority and still complaining. The Democrats have been a 8-25% majority since the 1940s, yet why do they act like they are always in the minority? Why do you attack Fox News exclusively even though its viewpoints are vastly underrepresented in the media? Because you aren't interested in democratic process or a balanced government, you're interested in having your ideology implemented on a national scale. How do you stage a revolution from the top, though? The audience that is being pandered to is you.
OMG, someone who has a clue, nice to meet you ^^
except FOX news and every other 24 hour news organization run in a similar fashion does deserve to be attacked because they bear the majority of the blame for the ABSURD watering down of political dialogue. Their Motto is basically: If it can't be said in 30 seconds with a clear villain and hero; it can't be said at all.
imho 24 hour news media will be the downfall of the US Political System, if anything is going to be.... its disgusting
You're not hating on Fox News because of their standards, though, you're just hating on them because of their view point. Else, you'd be hating on MSNBC, which is worse, and the NYT and Dan Rather, proven fabricators.
8-10% is the advantage given to Democrats by the media according to a recent UCLA study. I'm not saying these things to be partisan- I gave a defense of the system after all- , I'm saying them because the OP and others are preaching populism and its clear that populism has more than its fair share at the moment. So how do you have a revolution if you're already in charge? You're just mad at yourself I guess.
@OP- Rich people do and will always have a disproportionate effect on politics. They have the time, education and resources to do so. This is not unique to the U.S. or to the time. However, to say that they 'control everything' is just not a supportable arguments. Money is only so good as it gets him votes, after all, and small donations greatly outweigh the larger ones.
Why don't you read some books on electoral theory and party politics if this feels you with angst.
Lobbyists power, while formidable, is greatly exaggerated. Many people misinterpret what it means when companies give money to a particular politicians campaign. They see the cause and effect all wrong. They think the giving money to the campaign CAUSES the politician to support something they want (the EFFECT). This is generally wrong. Politicians with certain beliefs on issues that are beneficial to certain companies are given money by companies because of the politicians beliefs, not to change his/her beliefs. Companies simply try to keep people in office who hold beliefs which benefit them, they aren't buying politicians.
The general public is still in charge too. We are not controlled by mysterious corporate overlords. There are too many people, too many causes, too many corporations, for some sort of single set of the elite to uniformily make all the political decisions. Look at all the different policies out there, all kinds of which help absolutely no one who is powerful, all kinds which are even specifically damaging towards the wealthy and powerful. The will of the general public is heard, and is the basis for our political system, and our policies.
Your individual apathy towards the political process is indeed completely unimportant and irrelevant as you claim. The irrelevancy, or duty of an individual's decision in a very large system is something more for a philosophical discussion, though. I find no value in analyzing an individuals voting decision or importance, and I find looking at voting much more generally more useful.
You can rationalize your apathy however you want, for whatever purpose, but you are not powerless. And when you start trying to convince other people of falsehoods like this, it bothers me.
(Oh, and I'd definitely argue against the electoral system, but I think our discussion isn't really about that anymore in this thread).
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
We might not have the best equality of result in the world, but we have the best equality of opportunity known to man, and for me, that's the only thing that counts.
Um, no we don't. Many Scandinavian countries beat the pants off of the U.S. when it comes to equal opportunity. Most people born poor in the U.S. will die poor, and most born rich will die rich.
After thinking about the election system as a whole, it really doesn't make sense that we even elect individuals to power. We should be electing political parties at this point, since it's impossible for many of these representatives to actually represent the millions of people/views in their own districts.
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
It's your duty to vote even if you don't think it matters. A truly democratic state in which every citizen votes on every issue is nigh impossible. It only becomes more impractical when you consider a country of our size. Voting in any election that occurs is important. There are local elections that matter and you should absolutely vote in those even if the total number of people voting exceeds tens of thousands. If you don't vote, don't voice your opinion afterwards. It's funny how the most vocal people in this world are the ones who were too cynical to take part in the decision when they had the opportunity. You might be only one in millions but it's better than being nothing. If you feel especially impassioned about finding a politician you feel would be less self-serving and more altruistic, get out and do something about it.
It's pseudo-paradoxical to make a thread like this where you claim how pointless it is and then do nothing to try to counteract that pessimism. It's no different than being extremely overweight and blaming the food for making you fat yet refusing to enact any change in your own action to mitigate your perpetual obesity. Ignorance is bliss? Or perhaps not.
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
And it easily proven that America is the best country
I agree America is a great nation in many ways, but there are many great nations. I'd be interested in hearing your proof.
You would have to give me awhile to write good report on why America is the greatest, But if you just look at some basic facts that I don't have citations for: American has to be the largest supplier of world aid, It helped win many a war for the better, It was just recently passed by china as the world largest producer but china has like 5 times as many peeps, Probaly still is the worlds largest consumer, we export are culture worldwide with our styles in music and movies and tv being copied by billions, No other country comes close to exporting freedom like the U.S we will give American lifes for chance of allowing peeps in other countries to live free, we have probaly contributed the most to science and technology, I can go on and on but the point i want to make is forieners should have a lil gratitude for america because no matter where they are from they are affected by america daily even if in an indirect way. And I cant even think of what other country would give the U.S a run for its money Britain mabye but I think we proved what country was better with the revolution, Germany? they blew ther chance wit hitler, China? they blew ther chance many a time, Japan? lol you see when you look at just the history of countires let alone there stance today noone holds the moral compass of the united states, and you can point several incidnets like slavery and vietnam but the united states has made amends and admitted its mistakes and you could even make an arguement that native americans and the vietnamese are better off today then they would have been witout the U.S. So point is get out and vote kids ^^
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -Winston Churchill
Democracy relies on free thinking people to work as intended. The problem is, most of us live subconsciously. We are told something by a political candidate we see on the news or in a debate and we believe it. Politicians with the biggest pocketbook tend to do better because they can put out ads that feed subconscious thinking. Example: This candidate is bad because blahblahblah, vote for me because I blahblahblah. People buy into that. It's no different than corporate advertising.
Now we have tools to be a free thinking people. Even though the media has it's bias and it's ability to filter what we see, the internet isn't always reliable, and to get a book we have to leave our house, God-forbid, we still can use these tools with a bit of wisdom and knowledge. Problem is, we are too lazy to do this. We would rather gather our information from one source that claims to be reliable and be done with it. That source most commonly seems to be the mainstream media as it is right on our TV's and we literally don't have to put any effort into obtaining the information they tell us. Many times we don't even think about it and we just accept it!
So when we go to make an 'informed' decision such as a political vote, most people act off this lower conciseness they have. They make the decision someone else told them or persuaded them to make, not a decision they made on their own.
So I agree with the OP on several of his points. I would argue however that it is not big business or big government secretly taking advantage of us, but us surrendering ourselves to them. People are too lazy to take the power they have and like infants they need someone else to guide them. It's quite disgusting really, and it's all the peoples fault.
On March 02 2012 05:01 FeUerFlieGe wrote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -Winston Churchill
Democracy relies on free thinking people to work as intended. The problem is, most of us live subconsciously. We are told something by a political candidate we see on the news or in a debate and we believe it. Politicians with the biggest pocketbook tend to do better because they can put out ads that feed subconscious thinking. Example: This candidate is bad because blahblahblah, vote for me because I blahblahblah. People buy into that. It's no different than corporate advertising.
Now we have tools to be a free thinking people. Even though the media has it's bias and it's ability to filter what we see, the internet isn't always reliable, and to get a book we have to leave our house, God-forbid, we still can use these tools with a bit of wisdom and knowledge. Problem is, we are too lazy to do this. We would rather gather our information from one source that claims to be reliable and be done with it. That source most commonly seems to be the mainstream media as it is right on our TV's and we literally don't have to put any effort into obtaining the information they tell us. Many times we don't even think about it and we just accept it!
So when we go to make an 'informed' decision such as a political vote, most people act off this lower conciseness they have. They make the decision someone else told them or persuaded them to make, not a decision they made on their own.
So I agree with the OP on several of his points. I would argue however that it is not big business or big government secretly taking advantage of us, but us surrendering ourselves to them. People are too lazy to take the power they have and like infants they need someone else to guide them. It's quite disgusting really, and it's all the peoples fault.
I agree. I don't think its a big conspiracy either though, I think its just the natural progression of capitalism + a republic.
I agree with this post, I believe that politics in general in the states seems very corrupt. Governments are like a business, where money is everything except they don't give a single f*** for the efficiency and desire of the population. So much to say here but il just end it with lobbyists, super pacs, and desire for profit sadly blind most politicians from the objective of their duty in my opinion, in the states that is.
On March 02 2012 03:18 NotSorry wrote: I vote on smaller topics that will effect me locally/statewide, I will vote on governors and senate seats but I feel things like presidents are already decided in each state due to the joke of a system that is the electoral college, sure there are some states still up for grabs but there are many states that have been overwhelmingly Red or Blue since the beginning of the electoral college such as my home state as such I don't bother to vote.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
I really don't want 100 million people with IQs of less than 100 making the difference in the election. We'll end up even worse off.
So you're fine with the couple 100million people with IQs of less than 100 that we already have voting?
People think they're just another drop in the sea, and for the most part they are. Popular vote doesn't actually matter at all, it's all up to the electoral college. Al Gore vs. Bush sparked quite a big controversy over the Electoral college, and I think it disheartened a lot of people (me included).
Even if you don't vote... you can show up, fill out a ballot, and make it official you're not voting for anyone. That way you don't screw everyone else over just because you're lazy. It seriously takes 10 minutes and most jobs will let you come in late for it.
Plus they give you a cool pin. I can't think of any excuse not to at least do this much unless you're trying to just live in your own little ignorant world where nothing matters because you're tiny and out numbered.
On March 02 2012 03:45 Smat wrote: All of you people saying "voting doesn't matter, the president is elected by the electoral college anyway" need to go take a class in US government.
On March 02 2012 03:18 NotSorry wrote: I vote on smaller topics that will effect me locally/statewide, I will vote on governors and senate seats but I feel things like presidents are already decided in each state due to the joke of a system that is the electoral college, sure there are some states still up for grabs but there are many states that have been overwhelmingly Red or Blue since the beginning of the electoral college such as my home state as such I don't bother to vote.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
I really don't want 100 million people with IQs of less than 100 making the difference in the election. We'll end up even worse off.
So you're fine with the couple 100million people with IQs of less than 100 that we already have voting?
LOL pretty factual if you ask me.
The solution: Jerry Springer on Piers Morgan Live said that the key to the future in the united states is investing our money into education should be #1 priority. He said that when Peirs asked him what he would if he became president.
But the thing with Springer is that he knows politics, but since he does it because he loves it and not for money it makes his suggestions legit and logical
I have voted since I turned 18 almost 7 years ago. However as I have paid more and more attention and gotten a better picture of the true reality of the political system, I have realized more and more how truly pointless voting is. Especially when the majority of voters are completely uninformed and the majority of cantidates are career politicians who simply say whatever the opinion polls tell them to and people fall for it every single time.
I can't think of a better system, but in a system with democratically elected leaders you can't ever get a government smarter than the idiots who elect it. And yes, I am making the case that at least 70% if not more of the voting population are complete morons. Our education system is horribly broken and has been for decades and because of it people are horribly uneducated on almost all issues.
USA seems kinda corrupted, but I believe, if you don't vote, you lose your right to complain about the results. I understand it might be a different story in USA however.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
And it easily proven that America is the best country
I agree America is a great nation in many ways, but there are many great nations. I'd be interested in hearing your proof.
You would have to give me awhile to write good report on why America is the greatest, But if you just look at some basic facts that I don't have citations for: American has to be the largest supplier of world aid, It helped win many a war for the better, It was just recently passed by china as the world largest producer but china has like 5 times as many peeps, Probaly still is the worlds largest consumer, we export are culture worldwide with our styles in music and movies and tv being copied by billions, No other country comes close to exporting freedom like the U.S we will give American lifes for chance of allowing peeps in other countries to live free, we have probaly contributed the most to science and technology, I can go on and on but the point i want to make is forieners should have a lil gratitude for america because no matter where they are from they are affected by america daily even if in an indirect way. And I cant even think of what other country would give the U.S a run for its money Britain mabye but I think we proved what country was better with the revolution, Germany? they blew ther chance wit hitler, China? they blew ther chance many a time, Japan? lol you see when you look at just the history of countires let alone there stance today noone holds the moral compass of the united states, and you can point several incidnets like slavery and vietnam but the united states has made amends and admitted its mistakes and you could even make an arguement that native americans and the vietnamese are better off today then they would have been witout the U.S. So point is get out and vote kids ^^
LOL. Not only are you demanding "foreigners" have gratitude but you believe we "export freedom"? We export any and all regimes to achieve global political goals.
Furthermore at the very bottom you leave a great ending "native americans and vietnamese are better off today". Lol? We gave Native Americans liquor, diseases and holed them into tiny plots of land without even full sovereignty with values completely alien to them (AKA many natives valued social capital rather than financial capital).
This is simply one of the most embarrassing posts I've ever read. I'm patriotic but for realistic reasons, not fairytale reasons.
Yes we export freedom and I can spend 5 min thinking up a hundred examples if you want, Obviously we do it to benefit ourselves but it is freedom nonetheless, You can say we started a war in Iraq for oil or wateva, but the end result?? Millions of Iraqis have more freedom today than they did under saddam hussien, ask any kurd if they believe america exports freedom and you will get a resounding yes. We export regimes for our politcal goals, but our politcal goals are largely based on freedom and saftey for the world, we prevented communist and terrorism while exporting freedom.
Yes its a stretch they are better off today but an argument can be made. native americans have medicine and technology that would not be close to having without the U.S. And im not an expert on the vietnam war but they very well could be better off if we had just let communism take over unhidered, maby the soviet union would still be wrecking havoc without the vietnam war.
And the thing is these are like the only 2 negatives that anti americans always choose to bash while ignoring the overwhelming amount of good the United States has done for the world.
Futhermore you should be ashamed for bashing your country, do you realise what it has done for you? Do you realise what your life would be like had you been born in china? Do you realise that the United States has treated you so well that you get to have a spoiled delusional opinion on why your country is so bad?
And wats your deal dude? this is post was embarrasing to you? I love the U.S and im proud to stand up for it lol
imo if you don't vote you can't complain because your not representing your own wishes by voting for who you think is the best candidate or the best option on a bill. I vote so even my very small voice can be heard in the larger number of things.
Actually you can influence the decision making process, you just have to think beyond one election.
Your state consistently votes for Republicans... so if you vote Democratic your vote will not affect who gets elected in this election. But it will change their margin. (so they win by 70-30 instead of 70.00001-29.99999) that will Slightly affect the psychology of other voters in your state (and even other states).
Or vote for a third party that represents your views better... if the Communist (Peace and Freedom) or Theocracy (American Independent) party actually gets some votes in your district, local politicians/voters may take notice and shift their actions/votes slightly.
Basically do the same thing those people in power are doing "They've proven time and time again that they're willing to use their position to advance their own ends." Use Your position to advance Your own ends. If you don't, then someone will do it for you.
The only reason to not vote is if NONE of the candidates/party platforms are any better or worse than ANY other candidate/party platforms. (not just the two that might win, but all the others that exist)
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I had a friend once say that democracy is equivalent to asking two wolves and a sheep to take a vote on what's for dinner.
I forget which founding father said it, but there is a quote out there about how democracy is a stupidly shitty system, it's just sadly the best one we've come up with yet.
Getting mass amounts of people to cooperate on complex issues such as the governance of a nation will always be a mystery, atleast so long as people are susceptable to greed, corruption, selfishness, and cowardice.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
Please be nice.
I'm not claiming anything. I wrote a post that expressed my opinion on why I don't vote.
I work, go to school, spend time with family/friends, and pay taxes. What do you do?
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
You SHOULD lose rights... voting is one of the only things that separates you from a dictatorship. Furthermore, I cannot believe an American started this thread...
Even if you dont vote, the very fact that the people can influences more challengers to run for election so we dont get one family stuck in there doing whatever they want. Honestly, there has been tons of blood spilled for you to have that RIGHT. Go use it and stop whining when the other person wins your state.
Cant you see it ? Its mandatory to vote here, I need to vote otherwise I cant get a decent job, and other stuff
For all their sacrifices, they created a system that allows a bunch of hereditary oligarchies to basically buy their way into the elected offices due to the fact that the very masses they neglect can be easily bought by cheap incentives (since they are so ignorant/in need of that food) etc...
Democracy is a lie, its the dictatorship of the majority or the dictatorship of the oligarchical status quo.
Only reason this whole democracy thing is so hyped up, is to increase the control americans can exert on said countries, besides, americans dont even have a real democracy, as people vote as states for president, instead of as a country.
At least for all our flaws every vote counts the same when it comes to presidential elections, theres no electoral college bs
The question, “If I were President I’d…” implies that if you swap out one leader, put in another, then all will be well with America—as though our leaders are the cause of all ailments.
That must be why we’ve created a tradition of rampant attacks on our politicians. Are they too conservative for you? Too liberal? Too religious? Too atheist? Too gay? Too anti-gay? Too rich? Too dumb? Too smart? Too ethnic? Too philanderous? Curious behavior, given that we elect 88% of Congress every two years.
A second tradition-in-progress is the expectation that everyone else in our culturally pluralistic land should hold exactly your own outlook, on all issues.
When you’re scientifically literate, the world looks different to you. It’s a particular way of questioning what you see and hear. When empowered by this state of mind, objective realities matter. These are the truths of the world that exist outside of whatever your belief system tells you.
One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters. As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.
I don't vote in national elections. Votes simply don't count on that big of a scale. The Founding Fathers had it right the first time. The Electoral College should elect the President not the general population. Americans forget that we are a Federation of States, not a "State".
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
Why you so hostile?
Plenty of people are informed consumers of political news. Just because we are also grown ups with lives and can't spend our time being the vocal minority (either radically preaching politics or radically denouncing the system) doesn't mean our entire generation is apathetic.
I am offended that you would post such a 1 sided rant with no basis in reality. I am democratically active AND like HIMYM, insane, I know >_>
Take off your bias and realize not much has changed since you were a 20 something. Because at the moment you just sound like an angry old man
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?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
If everyone voted things would be a lot different. The issue is highlighted in this thread perfectly. The corrupt politicians have weakened the voter base to believe that they are absolutely useless, and that their vote or voice does not matter. This is exactly what they want.
If you don't vote don't complain about what is happening in this country.
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.
It gives me the right to complain about the government, if I voted and my guy lost ^^
If you don't vote and you still complain, I have no sympathy for you. Plus, for what it's worth, engaging in discussions about why you're voting for someone can absolutely sway people's opinions.
And on the off chance your guy wins and is a equally or more of a douche then the other candidate I should be able to complain because I had nothing to do with it for I didn't vote for him in the first place.
On March 02 2012 05:25 scaban84 wrote: I don't vote in national elections. Votes simply don't count on that big of a scale. The Founding Fathers had it right the first time. The Electoral College should elect the President not the general population. Americans forget that we are a Federation of States, not a "State".
well we didn't forget it, we changed this by getting rid of the articles of confederation.......
We do have a strong central "state" government, that can pass laws that apply to the 50 states (either directly like the 14th amendment or indirectly like the 21 drinking age.)
So.... yea.... If you are in a swing state your vote in a the presidential election matters. If you aren't in a swing state, work from the ground up to change that, or move.
The amount of apathy in this thread is mind numbing
On March 02 2012 05:29 Papulatus wrote: If everyone voted things would be a lot different. The issue is highlighted in this thread perfectly. The corrupt politicians have weakened the voter base to believe that they are absolutely useless, and that their vote or voice does not matter. This is exactly what they want.
If you don't vote don't complain about what is happening in this country.
Whether or not I voted does not make my opinions more or less valid. Assume I voted, what would your response to the OP be?
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. That's exactly analgous to saying, "well, I don't like sweatshops. And Nike uses sweatshops. But I'm just one person! Better keep buying Nikes." No. If you were actually against sweatshops and not just trying to rationalize your apathy, you'd spend the extra 10$ at a locally owned shoe store.
You seem to be implying that you're at a point of reservation, you COULD make a difference, but not enough to make you feel better about yourself, or immediately cause change. And because you couldn't see the effects right in front of you today, then fuck it.
People need to grow up and realize we are very very small. We won't really change much of anything in our lives. But we do have minute power. Learn to be responsible for your power in this world, no matter how little it is.
This discusssion is stupid! Just vote for the ideas you think may change ur contry, believe in the person you vote for. I've studied the elections system in USA in class and i've been in 2 americans family for 4 month. It's like people only think about themselves, their little life, their family, their social place is all for them. It's just the consequence of letting some fucking liberal guys (the religious thing is so funny, it's like they can do what they want as long as they pray! lol they should read more about the holy book) govern ur country. I'm not afraid of writing that all the republicans are rotten to the core. I'm not afraid of writting that the model ur republicans created is as bad as communism in URSS. It's speculation that can make country fall like Greece (thx goldman sax) and traders. Ur republicans are heads of compagnies and it's not possible to govern like that, u cant make properr decision like that. They only act for USA economy not for their people. You know i would have been glad if Obama was president of France. I see all the critics about him about being indecisive and that's so funny. He passed more laws than Bush and still people aint happy about it. The congres has never been with him since the beginning. And with the pressure of all these compagnies changement is a dream. The thing i know for sure is that american should get out of their shitty place and try to meet people from other social classes and i've never seen that ever on tv or in real life. Voting in USA is just about if u want things to change (democrate) or not (republicans).
Sorry if i was excessive and i ain't taking my country as an exemple but it's still way better than how USA works.
This is ridiculous. Do you realize a little over 50% of the voting population actually voted in 2008? An historic election, about 55% of people voted.
Who knows what the other 45% was doing or even if they should be voting, because I don't want uneducated people just pressing buttons. But if you don't think 45% of the population can change the direction of the country you're happily deluded and living in a conspiracy theorist's life.
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
People vote because they are acting irrationally. This is not only belied by economic analysis of elections and the power of a marginal vote, but also by the fact that people vote one way and then routinely act in was that contradict voting.
Example: Smoker votes for candidate who campaigns on banning smoking.
On March 02 2012 04:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. That's exactly analgous to saying, "well, I don't like sweatshops. And Nike uses sweatshops. But I'm just one person! Better keep buying Nikes." No. If you were actually against sweatshops and not just trying to rationalize your apathy, you'd spend the extra 10$ at a locally owned shoe store.
You seem to be implying that you're at a point of reservation, you COULD make a difference, but not enough to make you feel better about yourself, or immediately cause change. And because you couldn't see the effects right in front of you today, then fuck it.
People need to grow up and realize we are very very small. We won't really change much of anything in our lives. But we do have minute power. Learn to be responsible for your power in this world, no matter how little it is.
vote.
I'm not being ignorant, I'm pointing out that my OP is talking solely about national elections. I fully agree that my individual impact is very apparent at a local level.
I don't think your analogy applies to what I'm saying. If I thought one political party was evil/sweatshop, the other good/local store, then yes, supporting the evil party = bad.
I think US policy-making in general, regardless of party, is governed by money, and my vote will not influence that.
On March 02 2012 04:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. That's exactly analgous to saying, "well, I don't like sweatshops. And Nike uses sweatshops. But I'm just one person! Better keep buying Nikes." No. If you were actually against sweatshops and not just trying to rationalize your apathy, you'd spend the extra 10$ at a locally owned shoe store.
You seem to be implying that you're at a point of reservation, you COULD make a difference, but not enough to make you feel better about yourself, or immediately cause change. And because you couldn't see the effects right in front of you today, then fuck it.
People need to grow up and realize we are very very small. We won't really change much of anything in our lives. But we do have minute power. Learn to be responsible for your power in this world, no matter how little it is.
vote.
Hehe, I tried to address his comment for subtlety, but yea you are basically right
Politics moves from bottom up, if you aren't willing to get in on the ground floor how the fuck to expect to reach the top?
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
And it easily proven that America is the best country
I agree America is a great nation in many ways, but there are many great nations. I'd be interested in hearing your proof.
You would have to give me awhile to write good report on why America is the greatest, But if you just look at some basic facts that I don't have citations for: American has to be the largest supplier of world aid, It helped win many a war for the better, It was just recently passed by china as the world largest producer but china has like 5 times as many peeps, Probaly still is the worlds largest consumer, we export are culture worldwide with our styles in music and movies and tv being copied by billions, No other country comes close to exporting freedom like the U.S we will give American lifes for chance of allowing peeps in other countries to live free, we have probaly contributed the most to science and technology, I can go on and on but the point i want to make is forieners should have a lil gratitude for america because no matter where they are from they are affected by america daily even if in an indirect way. And I cant even think of what other country would give the U.S a run for its money Britain mabye but I think we proved what country was better with the revolution, Germany? they blew ther chance wit hitler, China? they blew ther chance many a time, Japan? lol you see when you look at just the history of countires let alone there stance today noone holds the moral compass of the united states, and you can point several incidnets like slavery and vietnam but the united states has made amends and admitted its mistakes and you could even make an arguement that native americans and the vietnamese are better off today then they would have been witout the U.S. So point is get out and vote kids ^^
LOL. Not only are you demanding "foreigners" have gratitude but you believe we "export freedom"? We export any and all regimes to achieve global political goals.
Furthermore at the very bottom you leave a great ending "native americans and vietnamese are better off today". Lol? We gave Native Americans liquor, diseases and holed them into tiny plots of land without even full sovereignty with values completely alien to them (AKA many natives valued social capital rather than financial capital).
This is simply one of the most embarrassing posts I've ever read. I'm patriotic but for realistic reasons, not fairytale reasons.
Yes we export freedom and I can spend 5 min thinking up a hundred examples if you want, Obviously we do it to benefit ourselves but it is freedom nonetheless, You can say we started a war in Iraq for oil or wateva, but the end result?? Millions of Iraqis have more freedom today than they did under saddam hussien, ask any kurd if they believe america exports freedom and you will get a resounding yes. We export regimes for our politcal goals, but our politcal goals are largely based on freedom and saftey for the world, we prevented communist and terrorism while exporting freedom.
Yes its a stretch they are better off today but an argument can be made. native americans have medicine and technology that would not be close to having without the U.S. And im not an expert on the vietnam war but they very well could be better off if we had just let communism take over unhidered, maby the soviet union would still be wrecking havoc without the vietnam war.
And the thing is these are like the only 2 negatives that anti americans always choose to bash while ignoring the overwhelming amount of good the United States has done for the world.
Futhermore you should be ashamed for bashing your country, do you realise what it has done for you? Do you realise what your life would be like had you been born in china? Do you realise that the United States has treated you so well that you get to have a spoiled delusional opinion on why your country is so bad?
And wats your deal dude? this is post was embarrasing to you? I love the U.S and im proud to stand up for it lol
I am sure there are thousands of kids in iraq, afghanistan, vietnam etc etc etc ... who have lost their parents, but are really fucking glad you brought them democracy ( in exchange for impoverishing the country, stealing oil etc ... ). I am not so sure about native americans tho because if it wasn't for you they probably wouldn't have had many of those diseases in the first place, therefore not needing your medical help, or your technology for that matters, for i am certain they were just as happy if not more without it . Also, i doubt they're very happy about the fact that you literally decimated them. I am also certain that nuking japan twice, killing thousands of innocents civilians and turning those who were not fortunate enough to be killed on the spot into monsters, did not exactly please them.
I honestly don't know about freedom and democracy, i doubt it really makes that big of a difference when you indebt most countries who have something you want, but i'm pretty sure anyone with a brain would agree on how freaking disgusting your methods are, i mean, lying to the world and your people is one thing, sending your people to die in another country to increase the wealth of a small percentage of the population is another thing ( i mean you guys don't have a mandatory military service like south korea, people CHOOSE to be in the army ) but planning terrorist attacks on your own people to start a war, that's like really bad fucking news for your people. But maybe you're one of those who belive operation northwoods is a lie and the tonkin incident really happened. I'm out of here.
You vote for congressmen, and that doesn't use the electoral college (which is not run like it used to be)... your vote matters there. Honestly, if you read Tocqueville and others, you'd realize it exactly as Zalz said. It's people that don't care. Now we find ourselves in a hard position that will take time to get out of, but it's our own fault. Over the years we've let politicians cross the boundaries of their authority because it was easy, they promised things, etc. The founding and running of America was based on an active, politically literate and involved people. Now, we are lazy.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. That's exactly analgous to saying, "well, I don't like sweatshops. And Nike uses sweatshops. But I'm just one person! Better keep buying Nikes." No. If you were actually against sweatshops and not just trying to rationalize your apathy, you'd spend the extra 10$ at a locally owned shoe store.
You seem to be implying that you're at a point of reservation, you COULD make a difference, but not enough to make you feel better about yourself, or immediately cause change. And because you couldn't see the effects right in front of you today, then fuck it.
People need to grow up and realize we are very very small. We won't really change much of anything in our lives. But we do have minute power. Learn to be responsible for your power in this world, no matter how little it is.
vote.
I'm not being ignorant, I'm pointing out that my OP is talking solely about national elections. I fully agree that my individual impact is very apparent at a local level.
I don't think your analogy applies to what I'm saying. If I thought one political party was evil/sweatshop, the other good/local store, then yes, supporting the evil party = bad.
I think US policy-making in general, regardless of party, is governed by money, and my vote will not influence that.
What you are doing is saying 1 vote doesnt matter at a national level
Then I say, yes I agree but YOU can matter at the national level if you work REALLY hard. Or you can matter at the county level if you work kinda hard.
Then you respond- Yes Of course I could have an impact locally but I can't nationally.
Then I respond, yes you can have an impact nationally by either working really hard in politics or working really hard in something else so you have the money to jump into national politics
Then you respond You don't want to work really hard and are mad that money is the only other way you can have influence, basically assuming people just wake up as multi millionaires.
Your argument is flawed because you are 1 assuming people are just rich cuz they are rich (which of course some are, but most worked really hard) and 2. because you refuse to accept that most national politicians started as local politicians
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. That's exactly analgous to saying, "well, I don't like sweatshops. And Nike uses sweatshops. But I'm just one person! Better keep buying Nikes." No. If you were actually against sweatshops and not just trying to rationalize your apathy, you'd spend the extra 10$ at a locally owned shoe store.
You seem to be implying that you're at a point of reservation, you COULD make a difference, but not enough to make you feel better about yourself, or immediately cause change. And because you couldn't see the effects right in front of you today, then fuck it.
People need to grow up and realize we are very very small. We won't really change much of anything in our lives. But we do have minute power. Learn to be responsible for your power in this world, no matter how little it is.
vote.
I'm not being ignorant, I'm pointing out that my OP is talking solely about national elections. I fully agree that my individual impact is very apparent at a local level.
I don't think your analogy applies to what I'm saying. If I thought one political party was evil/sweatshop, the other good/local store, then yes, supporting the evil party = bad.
I think US policy-making in general, regardless of party, is governed by money, and my vote will not influence that.
No, my analogy applies perfectly. If the system is bad, (see: sweatshops, money ruling politics, two party system, whatever floats your boat), and I am aware that I could make some minute change (see: not buy from sweatshop brands, vote for candidates who don't accept corporate money, vote for a party which will restrict campaign finance, etc), but choose not to because I believe the system won't change (sweatshops will still exist, politics will always be ruled by money), then I'm an asshat.
On March 02 2012 04:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
I do realize that about half the eligible voters here don't vote, yes. I don't think it changes what I said.
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. That's exactly analgous to saying, "well, I don't like sweatshops. And Nike uses sweatshops. But I'm just one person! Better keep buying Nikes." No. If you were actually against sweatshops and not just trying to rationalize your apathy, you'd spend the extra 10$ at a locally owned shoe store.
You seem to be implying that you're at a point of reservation, you COULD make a difference, but not enough to make you feel better about yourself, or immediately cause change. And because you couldn't see the effects right in front of you today, then fuck it.
People need to grow up and realize we are very very small. We won't really change much of anything in our lives. But we do have minute power. Learn to be responsible for your power in this world, no matter how little it is.
vote.
I'm not being ignorant, I'm pointing out that my OP is talking solely about national elections. I fully agree that my individual impact is very apparent at a local level.
I don't think your analogy applies to what I'm saying. If I thought one political party was evil/sweatshop, the other good/local store, then yes, supporting the evil party = bad.
I think US policy-making in general, regardless of party, is governed by money, and my vote will not influence that.
No, my analogy applies perfectly. If the system is bad, (see: sweatshops, money ruling politics, two party system, whatever floats your boat), and I am aware that I could make some minute change (see: not buy from sweatshop brands, vote for candidates who don't accept corporate money, vote for a party which will restrict campaign finance, etc), but choose not to because I believe the system won't change (sweatshops will still exist, politics will always be ruled by money), then I'm an asshat.
Please be nice. The reason it doesn't apply is because my arguments are the same no matter who I vote for, no matter who wins. Democrat or Republican, in the end it will still (in my opinion) a system controlled by wealth.
On March 02 2012 04:46 stokes17 wrote: [quote] Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. That's exactly analgous to saying, "well, I don't like sweatshops. And Nike uses sweatshops. But I'm just one person! Better keep buying Nikes." No. If you were actually against sweatshops and not just trying to rationalize your apathy, you'd spend the extra 10$ at a locally owned shoe store.
You seem to be implying that you're at a point of reservation, you COULD make a difference, but not enough to make you feel better about yourself, or immediately cause change. And because you couldn't see the effects right in front of you today, then fuck it.
People need to grow up and realize we are very very small. We won't really change much of anything in our lives. But we do have minute power. Learn to be responsible for your power in this world, no matter how little it is.
vote.
I'm not being ignorant, I'm pointing out that my OP is talking solely about national elections. I fully agree that my individual impact is very apparent at a local level.
I don't think your analogy applies to what I'm saying. If I thought one political party was evil/sweatshop, the other good/local store, then yes, supporting the evil party = bad.
I think US policy-making in general, regardless of party, is governed by money, and my vote will not influence that.
No, my analogy applies perfectly. If the system is bad, (see: sweatshops, money ruling politics, two party system, whatever floats your boat), and I am aware that I could make some minute change (see: not buy from sweatshop brands, vote for candidates who don't accept corporate money, vote for a party which will restrict campaign finance, etc), but choose not to because I believe the system won't change (sweatshops will still exist, politics will always be ruled by money), then I'm an asshat.
Please be nice. The reason it doesn't apply is because my arguments are the same no matter who I vote for, no matter who wins. Democrat or Republican, in the end it will still (in my opinion) a system controlled by wealth.
You already admitted that you could make a difference on the local level. And the local level has power. If you want to believe that the power narrative offered by CNN and FOX is how our country is actually run then you're not living in the real world. Stop thinking about national politics. You have power. Get off your ass and vote.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. That's exactly analgous to saying, "well, I don't like sweatshops. And Nike uses sweatshops. But I'm just one person! Better keep buying Nikes." No. If you were actually against sweatshops and not just trying to rationalize your apathy, you'd spend the extra 10$ at a locally owned shoe store.
You seem to be implying that you're at a point of reservation, you COULD make a difference, but not enough to make you feel better about yourself, or immediately cause change. And because you couldn't see the effects right in front of you today, then fuck it.
People need to grow up and realize we are very very small. We won't really change much of anything in our lives. But we do have minute power. Learn to be responsible for your power in this world, no matter how little it is.
vote.
I'm not being ignorant, I'm pointing out that my OP is talking solely about national elections. I fully agree that my individual impact is very apparent at a local level.
I don't think your analogy applies to what I'm saying. If I thought one political party was evil/sweatshop, the other good/local store, then yes, supporting the evil party = bad.
I think US policy-making in general, regardless of party, is governed by money, and my vote will not influence that.
What you are doing is saying 1 vote doesnt matter at a national level
Then I say, yes I agree but YOU can matter at the national level if you work REALLY hard. Or you can matter at the county level if you work kinda hard.
Then you respond- Yes Of course I could have an impact locally but I can't nationally.
Then I respond, yes you can have an impact nationally by either working really hard in politics or working really hard in something else so you have the money to jump into national politics
Then you respond You don't want to work really hard and are mad that money is the only other way you can have influence, basically assuming people just wake up as multi millionaires.
Your argument is flawed because you are 1 assuming people are just rich cuz they are rich (which of course some are, but most worked really hard) and 2. because you refuse to accept that most national politicians started as local politicians
I do work hard, thank you very much I did not say that 'i don't want to work really hard'. I said that even if I were to dedicate my life to being the best damn politician I could be, I would still not change the fact that wealth controls all in politics. Somebody brought up Marco Rubio earlier as an example of a hard working, honest politician. He's great, but the system remains unchanged.
I feel like you're accusing me of apathy unless I dedicate my life to becoming a politician.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
Please be nice.
I'm not claiming anything. I wrote a post that expressed my opinion on why I don't vote.
I work, go to school, spend time with family/friends, and pay taxes. What do you do?
I point out how your reasoning is self-deceptive and false. The true motivation being a lack of interest in the political process, masked as political activism.
As such it was a perfectly valid response to your opinion.
Why you so hostile?
Plenty of people are informed consumers of political news. Just because we are also grown ups with lives and can't spend our time being the vocal minority (either radically preaching politics or radically denouncing the system) doesn't mean our entire generation is apathetic.
I am offended that you would post such a 1 sided rant with no basis in reality. I am democratically active AND like HIMYM, insane, I know >_>
Take off your bias and realize not much has changed since you were a 20 something. Because at the moment you just sound like an angry old man
The entire post was aimed at people that don't vote.
How could you take offense if you are actually democratically active...
I am 20ish, I also like HIMYM. Those however, were not the essentials of the post.
On March 02 2012 04:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. That's exactly analgous to saying, "well, I don't like sweatshops. And Nike uses sweatshops. But I'm just one person! Better keep buying Nikes." No. If you were actually against sweatshops and not just trying to rationalize your apathy, you'd spend the extra 10$ at a locally owned shoe store.
You seem to be implying that you're at a point of reservation, you COULD make a difference, but not enough to make you feel better about yourself, or immediately cause change. And because you couldn't see the effects right in front of you today, then fuck it.
People need to grow up and realize we are very very small. We won't really change much of anything in our lives. But we do have minute power. Learn to be responsible for your power in this world, no matter how little it is.
vote.
I'm not being ignorant, I'm pointing out that my OP is talking solely about national elections. I fully agree that my individual impact is very apparent at a local level.
I don't think your analogy applies to what I'm saying. If I thought one political party was evil/sweatshop, the other good/local store, then yes, supporting the evil party = bad.
I think US policy-making in general, regardless of party, is governed by money, and my vote will not influence that.
No, my analogy applies perfectly. If the system is bad, (see: sweatshops, money ruling politics, two party system, whatever floats your boat), and I am aware that I could make some minute change (see: not buy from sweatshop brands, vote for candidates who don't accept corporate money, vote for a party which will restrict campaign finance, etc), but choose not to because I believe the system won't change (sweatshops will still exist, politics will always be ruled by money), then I'm an asshat.
Please be nice. The reason it doesn't apply is because my arguments are the same no matter who I vote for, no matter who wins. Democrat or Republican, in the end it will still (in my opinion) a system controlled by wealth.
You already admitted that you could make a difference on the local level. And the local level has power. If you want to believe that the power narrative offered by CNN and FOX is how our country is actually run then you're not living in the real world. Stop thinking about national politics. You have power. Get off your ass and vote.
Yes, I admitted it in my OP. No news there
The local level has power to maintain roads and come up with zoning laws. It doesn't stop Congressmen from passing bills that give them pay raises.
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?
Thank you for this post, it gives me an excuse to go on my political rant without picking on a particular party. The Electoral College is honestly one of the worst ideas ever invented. Even if they broke it down into counties, I live in a county that traditionally always votes the opposite way I do, so my vote still wouldn't matter. Businesses and lobbying have way too much influence on our government. The two party system is an absolute joke and prevents candidates from running on the issues and allows them to get ridiculous backing from corporations and organizations. What we need is to have a technocracy, where the experts in given fields are the ones controlling the funding to those fields. SOPA and similarly dumb legislations are due to having people in office that do not understand how the Internet and the modern world really works.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
Please be nice.
I'm not claiming anything. I wrote a post that expressed my opinion on why I don't vote.
I work, go to school, spend time with family/friends, and pay taxes. What do you do?
I point out how your reasoning is self-deceptive and false. The true motivation being a lack of interest in the political process, masked as political activism.
As such it was a perfectly valid response to your opinion.
Plenty of people are informed consumers of political news. Just because we are also grown ups with lives and can't spend our time being the vocal minority (either radically preaching politics or radically denouncing the system) doesn't mean our entire generation is apathetic.
I am offended that you would post such a 1 sided rant with no basis in reality. I am democratically active AND like HIMYM, insane, I know >_>
Take off your bias and realize not much has changed since you were a 20 something. Because at the moment you just sound like an angry old man
The entire post was aimed at people that don't vote.
How could you take offense if you are actually democratically active...
I am 20ish, I also like HIMYM. Those however, were not the essentials of the post.
Well first off, the second part wasn't me
Very perceptive of you to determine my 'true motivation' is a lack of interest in the political process. You must know a lot about me.
The more authority government has, the more it promotes collusion and corruption. That is the irony of the occupy movement.
However, you can still have a large effect on things. Imagine if a huge chunk of people that had never voted started voting for a 3rd party candidate. It's just that the two parties and the media downplay and mock that stuff.
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.
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.
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.
On March 02 2012 05:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Well first off, the second part wasn't me
I never said it was.
Very perceptive of you to determine my 'true motivation' is a lack of interest in the political process. You must know a lot about me.
I simply respond to the content of the post.
If you are in any way or shape different in real life, I cannot decipher that. Consider all posts aimed at the person you display to be on the internet. I can't know if a man is pretending to be a woman or you are secretly Rick Santorum.
I vote because I honestly believe that it does make a difference at times (despite the fact that I'm a Republican voting in California, so 70-80% of the time my vote doesn't mean anything) and because I think it's part of one's civic duty. If you don't vote then don't complain if you don't like the way things are being run in government.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
The generalization that ALL people that does not vote are just lazy, is pathetic and because of it I will go and blank vote at the next election, just to prove your stupid and ignorant post wrong.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
The generalization that ALL people that does not vote are just lazy, is pathetic and because of it I will go and blank vote at the next election, just to prove your stupid and ignorant post wrong.
I actually believe that everyone should go and vote, and if they don't feel they can make a well informed choice, or they don't see a group/candidate that deserves their vote, they should blank vote.
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
And it easily proven that America is the best country
I agree America is a great nation in many ways, but there are many great nations. I'd be interested in hearing your proof.
You would have to give me awhile to write good report on why America is the greatest, But if you just look at some basic facts that I don't have citations for: American has to be the largest supplier of world aid, It helped win many a war for the better, It was just recently passed by china as the world largest producer but china has like 5 times as many peeps, Probaly still is the worlds largest consumer, we export are culture worldwide with our styles in music and movies and tv being copied by billions, No other country comes close to exporting freedom like the U.S we will give American lifes for chance of allowing peeps in other countries to live free, we have probaly contributed the most to science and technology, I can go on and on but the point i want to make is forieners should have a lil gratitude for america because no matter where they are from they are affected by america daily even if in an indirect way. And I cant even think of what other country would give the U.S a run for its money Britain mabye but I think we proved what country was better with the revolution, Germany? they blew ther chance wit hitler, China? they blew ther chance many a time, Japan? lol you see when you look at just the history of countires let alone there stance today noone holds the moral compass of the united states, and you can point several incidnets like slavery and vietnam but the united states has made amends and admitted its mistakes and you could even make an arguement that native americans and the vietnamese are better off today then they would have been witout the U.S. So point is get out and vote kids ^^
LOL. Not only are you demanding "foreigners" have gratitude but you believe we "export freedom"? We export any and all regimes to achieve global political goals.
Furthermore at the very bottom you leave a great ending "native americans and vietnamese are better off today". Lol? We gave Native Americans liquor, diseases and holed them into tiny plots of land without even full sovereignty with values completely alien to them (AKA many natives valued social capital rather than financial capital).
This is simply one of the most embarrassing posts I've ever read. I'm patriotic but for realistic reasons, not fairytale reasons.
Yes we export freedom and I can spend 5 min thinking up a hundred examples if you want, Obviously we do it to benefit ourselves but it is freedom nonetheless, You can say we started a war in Iraq for oil or wateva, but the end result?? Millions of Iraqis have more freedom today than they did under saddam hussien, ask any kurd if they believe america exports freedom and you will get a resounding yes. We export regimes for our politcal goals, but our politcal goals are largely based on freedom and saftey for the world, we prevented communist and terrorism while exporting freedom.
Yes its a stretch they are better off today but an argument can be made. native americans have medicine and technology that would not be close to having without the U.S. And im not an expert on the vietnam war but they very well could be better off if we had just let communism take over unhidered, maby the soviet union would still be wrecking havoc without the vietnam war.
And the thing is these are like the only 2 negatives that anti americans always choose to bash while ignoring the overwhelming amount of good the United States has done for the world.
Futhermore you should be ashamed for bashing your country, do you realise what it has done for you? Do you realise what your life would be like had you been born in china? Do you realise that the United States has treated you so well that you get to have a spoiled delusional opinion on why your country is so bad?
And wats your deal dude? this is post was embarrasing to you? I love the U.S and im proud to stand up for it lol
I am sure there are thousands of kids in iraq, afghanistan, vietnam etc etc etc ... who have lost their parents, but are really fucking glad you brought them democracy ( in exchange for impoverishing the country, stealing oil etc ... ). I am not so sure about native americans tho because if it wasn't for you they probably wouldn't have had many of those diseases in the first place, therefore not needing your medical help, or your technology for that matters, for i am certain they were just as happy if not more without it . Also, i doubt they're very happy about the fact that you literally decimated them. I am also certain that nuking japan twice, killing thousands of innocents civilians and turning those who were not fortunate enough to be killed on the spot into monsters, did not exactly please them.
I honestly don't know about freedom and democracy, i doubt it really makes that big of a difference when you indebt most countries who have something you want, but i'm pretty sure anyone with a brain would agree on how freaking disgusting your methods are, i mean, lying to the world and your people is one thing, sending your people to die in another country to increase the wealth of a small percentage of the population is another thing ( i mean you guys don't have a mandatory military service like south korea, people CHOOSE to be in the army ) but planning terrorist attacks on your own people to start a war, that's like really bad fucking news for your people. But maybe you're one of those who belive operation northwoods is a lie and the tonkin incident really happened. I'm out of here.
OH boy lol. Where to start??? First off i will emphaize my line that you quoted but didnt read apparently, "And the thing is these are like the only 2 negatives that anti americans always choose to bash while ignoring the overwhelming amount of good the United States has done for the world."
Second I will take up your arguments even though you saying the united states was behind 911 makes everything you said meaningless. Yes democracy and freedom come at a price. Yes there are kids in these countries who lost thier parents and they mite not like that trade for freedom but i gurantee you that there kids will be grateful for that trade.All Americans also have ancestors who died for freedom also. As for impovershiing the country you dont provide any facts to back that up, but its not Americas goal to hurt the economies of these countries when we provide them with freedom but yes it is often one of the costs. But when you look down the line these countries are often better off. I have no data on vietnam but i would wager they are better off now then they would have been, and i gurantee Iraq and afghanistan will be better off in 10 years than they would have been with no american intervention.
I have gotten stuck defeneding the two worst things america has ever done lol but, I would bet the native americans are better off today than they would have been they would probly still be raiding differnet tribes and makin human sacrafices today had it not been for the united states. And im sure if we hadnt nuked japan alot more japanese, chinese, and americans peeps woulda died.
Your last paragraph is to out there to debate. Also i like how your to ashamed to post what country your from but you will openly bash the u.s.
Also buddy you have a very strange hatred against the United States lol. Like i dont even hate the worst countries that bring nothing but evil to the world like north korea etc.. as much as you hate the United States lol (and the United States has hands down done more good for the world then any other country.
So now im not even intrested in the topic we need to start a new topic on how people become angry and distraught that they have to put all their troubles on the united states lol. Are you a terrorist buddy? did you spend years getting waterboarded by the U.S. cuz you just got a crazy hatred goin lol.
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?
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
The generalization that ALL people that does not vote are just lazy, is pathetic and because of it I will go and blank vote at the next election, just to prove your stupid and ignorant post wrong.
I actually believe that everyone should go and vote, and if they don't feel they can make a well informed choice, or they don't see a group/candidate that deserves their vote, they should blank vote.
So...
Thank you?
Pathetic.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Our soldiers shed their blood and tears for freedom. Freedom means making whatever choice you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others right to do the same.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home.
I go and cast a ballot, even if I don't want to vote for any particular person. I believe it's important for all of the citizens of the USA to go vote.
Obviously if you have a fever and are sick with strep throat you don't need to hike through the snow to make sure you vote is counted, but normally everyone should vote.
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?
Indirect democracy.
Your votes only count for the electors, not the president.
A candidate may have more votes but if he has less electors he's fucked.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
The generalization that ALL people that does not vote are just lazy, is pathetic and because of it I will go and blank vote at the next election, just to prove your stupid and ignorant post wrong.
I actually believe that everyone should go and vote, and if they don't feel they can make a well informed choice, or they don't see a group/candidate that deserves their vote, they should blank vote.
So...
Thank you?
Pathetic.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Our soldiers shed their blood and tears for freedom. Freedom means making whatever choice you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others right to do the same.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home.
wow.... this thread makes my brain hurt... I am saddened greatly to see that people truly believe that they have no control over their political governance, despite the fact that it is the basis, in essence, of the American ideals.
Why don't you go talk to an MP? (in Australia - Member of Parliament) Why don't you find other groups of people with interests that align to your own? Why don't you vote for a candidate that represents your views? If you feel that the two top candidates are trash, why don't you vote for another? if the top two are guarranteed to get the majority and, if you did vote, you'd vote against them; then by abstaining your vote you are increasing their majority.
If you can't be bothered finding a way to make the political system work for you, why do you deserve any of the benefits of it's governance? This is part of the age old problem of governance and voting.
There are a million factors but I'll list a few:
1. Equality means everyone should have a vote (there are arguments for and against this, but it doesn't really matter in this case) 2. People can make junk votes and perfectly informed votes, based on their range of knowledge of candidates. 3. People who don't vote still benefit (or are shat on) by the government that they vote on. 4. People can still communicate to officials in office, informing them of their views.
Now if you follow my reasoning here then perhaps you can understand why many people who DO vote and who feel that voting is important will get very angry when people trash the current systems because in this case, they're about as useful to the solution as the guy who throws rocks at people who are trying to clean up a mess, instead of helping to clean up the mess.
In Australia, it is relatively easy to move up through the political system, if you are capable. You start by running for local council; which is quite easy if you're intelligent (ie. you know how to listen, reason, comprehend) and hardworking (it's virtually a 24/7 commitment). Once you have experience in governance you can then run for MP through a party or as an independant etc etc. I can't spell it all out for you, but simply put, those rich people who you complain about are people who had to start somewhere too.
Except for the cases of justified costs (you don't want to get involved, take time to vote, genuinely don't care), voter apathy is almost entirely pathetic, in the literal sense.
On March 02 2012 06:12 Aserrin wrote: I can't understand why you guys have an indirect democracy where some votes count and some don't, that's ridiculous.
huh? what do you mean: some votes count and some don't?
Your votes only count for the electors, not the president.
have the electors ever "changed" their vote? voted one way despite the people of that state voting differently? has this "change" ever influenced a presidential election?
A candidate may have more votes but if he has less electors he's fucked.
there is good reason for that: many states would not recieve practical representation if we didn't have electors. popular vote would disenfranchise more people than it would enfranchise and would give four or five states way too much power.
On March 02 2012 02:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote: It's not. That's why I don't vote.
By not voting, you are giving up the only power you have left.
Congratulations to you, and one more for team Apathy
One vote never matters much.
But - voting matters.
I have always told everyone that I know that if they don't vote, they give up any right to complain about 'the system' - because they can't be bothered to do the single easiest most powerful thing they can do.
And that's not writing a blog or complaining, but simply going to cast their vote every X years.
In addition, the fact that young people vote less than older people, that less educated vote less than more educated, that fanatics vote more than those always willing to see the other persons point of view, and the fact that the politicians are in the business of being re-elected ... they will cater to special interests, old values, the educated, etc.
If the young and poor wants more power, then they - as a group - need to realize that even if you support neither candidate, voting for better of two bad alternatives en masse, will make you a group worth catering to comes next election.
Why is Obama president? Because he won the young and the minority votes mostly. If the young and the minorities don't bother voting this upcoming election, Romney will be president - if they bother because they can be made to care, he will be president for another 4 years.
Simple fact.
He made people that otherwise wouldn't bother - bother, and go out voting. So he won. Not because he convinced a majority of those that vote every election ...
So you just wanted to rant instead of talking about trying to actually make a difference? My bad. I misunderstood.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Why does it matter how you vote when either party is as corrupt as the other one. An average person cant lobby to have a new law passed in the USA, but a major corporation can write their own bills and pay an elected official to have it presented to the house. Until crap like that is dealt with, the party you vote for is of less importance.
Im canadian and I vote, and its incredibly disheartening. I live in a purely conservative province, and i lean conservative, however because the province has never had more than 1 non conservative riding in 25years, the party does whatever the fuck it wants with no regard for the average person. There is no alternative, the other 2 (3 if you include the newly popular wildrose(who are crazy as shit)) dont even bother compaigning here anymore, as they cannot win.
All voting does is decide which party is going to make bank for the next 4 years. Also why is so much placed on presidential elections in the USA? the president has very little real power compared to like, the PM of Canada, bills and laws have to go through the senate or congress or whatever right? Yet i never see anyone discuss or post anything or see any news on senatorial elections. I dont really understand that part works in the USA and i dont really care cause i dont live there, but shouldnt people pay more attention to that instead of who the figurehead of a party is?
IMO minority governments are the best for a country, as it stops the ruling party from doing insane things with no opposition. The only time I agree with a majority is if you need it to fix the mistakes that the last majority party implemented during there stay.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
On March 02 2012 06:00 Excomm wrote: Your vote counts the same as any other individual in the US. It doesn't matter how much money they have or how educated they are. The only reason not to vote is if you are 100% apathetic about all of the candidates and would be fine with every single policy in thier campaign platforms.
Just because Congress doesn't do anything it isn't paid for (and then still doesn't do anything) doesn't mean your vote counts any less.
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
Actually votes do not count the same, and I will explain why (it is the reason that I do not believe in voting):
Basically smaller states have a lot more weight to their votes than larger states. This is because the amount of points that states have in the electoral college is based off of both population as well as two points for every states two seats in the senate For large states like CA these two extra points do not mean very much. Instead of 53 points based on only population they have they have 55. Smaller states however that would only have 1 point from population instead gain an extra 2 points making a total of 3. This is 300% of what they would have if the system was based solely on population. This means that even though a state like Wyoming (population: 600,000) may have 1/60 the population that CA (population: 38,000,000) does they have more than 1/20 of the voting power. This means that every citizen of wyoming has 3 times as much say as a voter in CA.
When I first learned about this from my American Politics professor in university I remember the actual proportion being something more along the lines the vote of a CA citizen being about 1/10 of that of a citizen from one of the smaller states (I do not remember which one). The system is far from fair.
I don't think he started this thread with the intent of solving the growing problem of voter apathy in the US. He's asking WHY people vote, as in, people who do choose to vote, why do you choose to do so?
Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them.
I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes.
Money for research = good.
Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad.
On March 02 2012 06:00 Excomm wrote: Your vote counts the same as any other individual in the US. It doesn't matter how much money they have or how educated they are. The only reason not to vote is if you are 100% apathetic about all of the candidates and would be fine with every single policy in thier campaign platforms.
Just because Congress doesn't do anything it isn't paid for (and then still doesn't do anything) doesn't mean your vote counts any less.
Actually votes do not count the same, and I will explain why (it is the reason that I do not believe in voting):
Basically smaller states have a lot more weight to their votes than larger states. This is because the amount of points that states have in the electoral college is based off of both population as well as two points for every states two seats in the senate For large states like CA these two extra points do not mean very much. Instead of 53 points based on only population they have they have 55. Smaller states however that would only have 1 point from population instead gain an extra 2 points making a total of 3. This is 300% of what they would have if the system was based solely on population. This means that even though a state like Wyoming (population: 600,000) may have 1/60 the population that CA (population: 38,000,000) does they have more than 1/20 of the voting power. This means that every citizen of wyoming has 3 times as much say as a voter in CA.
When I first learned about this from my American Politics professor in university I remember the actual proportion being something more along the lines the vote of a CA citizen being about 1/10 of that of a citizen from one of the smaller states (I do not remember which one). The system is far from fair.
This is the correct way to criticize the electoral college. It favors small states, not large ones.
But your criticism is done in a vacuum. Realize that the increased power of the small states is counter balanced by large states being much more lucrative to campaign in. I think it ends up being close to a wash, especially because conflict between general vote and electoral vote is very very rare (win general- lose electoral for ex.)
here is a short video of a guy who used to work for fox -business- news (you'll see why he got fired...), who sums up my views.... the parties are really just the same.
If you think the two party system in America is awful then you could at least vote for one of the minor parties, if nothing else than just to screw with Democrats and Republicans. Doesn't matter if you vote for the green party or the communists or the nazis, voting for any of the minor parties makes it more likely that one of them will become big enough to have an effect on the two party system. Basically the more political parties there are that can actually affect things the more likely it is that one of them will align with your views, thereby giving you a purpose to vote. Whether it seems like it or not your vote actually does count for something (a miniscule percentage, dependent on what kind of election it is of course), you may as well get the most out of that as you can.
By the way this is probably a good place to bring up the alternative vote system that Britain (might just have been England, but it was probably all of Britain) voted on whether to switch to. Basically you would get to vote for your first preference, if they don't have a chance to win the vote goes to your second preference, and so on for however many preferences you choose. I feel like it would make democracy far more representative of people's actual views compared to what America, and other democracies, currently has.
On March 02 2012 06:12 Aserrin wrote: I can't understand why you guys have an indirect democracy where some votes count and some don't, that's ridiculous.
huh? what do you mean: some votes count and some don't?
Your votes only count for the electors, not the president.
have the electors ever "changed" their vote? voted one way despite the people of that state voting differently? has this "change" ever influenced a presidential election?
A candidate may have more votes but if he has less electors he's fucked.
there is good reason for that: many states would not recieve practical representation if we didn't have electors. popular vote would disenfranchise more people than it would enfranchise and would give four or five states way too much power.
Or we could just go to a national vote and disregard separating results by state
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
it is not directly proportional to the population.
Or we could just go to a national vote and disregard separating results by state
which would mean that a candidate only has to carry a few states to win, and doing more than the barest minimum of campaigning in a state like wyoming would be harmful to your chances of winning. basically, you would make it so carrying the top fifteen states means you win the election. which would encourage politicians to ignore the needs of the smaller states and overemphasise the needs of the larger states.
On March 02 2012 04:46 stokes17 wrote: [quote] Civic duty?
What bothers me is the OP is basically saying "I'm unsatisfied with how much my vote matters!!!!" "if I'm not super rich my vote doesn't matter!!!" All I hear is "I'm too lazy to make a difference"
Like, Warren Buffet's 1 vote counts as much as yours. Warren Buffet holds influence because he puts a lot of effort into it. Money is of course the easiest way to exert effort on the political system, but it is not the only way. Be a community organizer, convince 100 people to vote for the guy you believe in... boom now you have the power of 101 votes instead of one, because you put in some effort.
I see voting as the final, and easiest, step in a campaign. Since I've put in so much effort over the past X months campaigning or at least being an active observer in the process, why wouldn't I vote?
The OP also sounds mad that he doesn't live in a battle ground state, and because of this feels powerless when once every 4 years a presidential election occurs and his state is a NC. Instead of sitting and complaining why don't you work during those 4 years to change the landscape of your state? MAKE your state a battleground state. Start by getting your party in at the state level, try and win an open Rep. Election (you'll never beat incumbents). Politics work from the ground up. The states that were battle ground states 20 years ago may not be so today; just because the landscapes change slowly doesn't mean it is immobile.
You can make a change, if you start small and work hard. That applies at every level. Do you think Obama's people thought he had a fucking chance in hell in 06? Hell no, he was a community organizer with State senate experience, and 1 term as a US senator. That is NOT a resume for a presidential candidate. And he won! He took down Hilary in the primary who had an order of magnitude more experience at the Federal Executive level, and he took down McCain in the general who has decades in the senate and is a decorated war hero.
The only people who think politics in America are Immobile, are people who don't follow politics in America
Furthermore, the vast majority of campaign contributions are from small donors (less than ~$200$
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them.
I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes.
Money for research = good.
Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad.
dood either have a thread on elections or have a thread on lobbying in the policy making process
its impossible to discuss both simultaneously
And no there are not tons of loopholes (b4 citizens united), some, but not as rampant as you are implying. Every candidate before Obama took public funding for his presidential campaign.
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
it is not directly proportional to the population.
yea, its skewed to empower small states.... hence your statement made no sense
On March 02 2012 02:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote: It's not. That's why I don't vote.
By not voting, you are giving up the only power you have left.
Congratulations to you, and one more for team Apathy
One vote never matters much.
But - voting matters.
I have always told everyone that I know that if they don't vote, they give up any right to complain about 'the system' - because they can't be bothered to do the single easiest most powerful thing they can do.
And that's not writing a blog or complaining, but simply going to cast their vote every X years.
In addition, the fact that young people vote less than older people, that less educated vote less than more educated, that fanatics vote more than those always willing to see the other persons point of view, and the fact that the politicians are in the business of being re-elected ... they will cater to special interests, old values, the educated, etc.
If the young and poor wants more power, then they - as a group - need to realize that even if you support neither candidate, voting for better of two bad alternatives en masse, will make you a group worth catering to comes next election.
Why is Obama president? Because he won the young and the minority votes mostly. If the young and the minorities don't bother voting this upcoming election, Romney will be president - if they bother because they can be made to care, he will be president for another 4 years.
Simple fact.
He made people that otherwise wouldn't bother - bother, and go out voting. So he won. Not because he convinced a majority of those that vote every election ...
^^ Exactly how I feel about it. Yeah so one vote doesn't count for much, but if you don't vote, you're basically agreeing with whatever is happening, because even if you can't change it alone, you are doing nothing about it.
Things aren't going to change themselves, and whether or not your one vote does much really shouldn't matter! You should do it for yourself, as the saying goes "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
If you honestly don't care or are pleased with current policies, then don't vote, but I hate talking to people that are always complaining about the status quo, and then when asked if they voted they ALWAYS respond "No, my vote means nothing." Well it certainly does now, and so does your opinion to me
On March 02 2012 06:38 Bout2plucku wrote: here is a short video of a guy who used to work for fox news (you'll see why he got fired...), who sums up my views.... the parties are really just the same.
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
it is not directly proportional to the population.
yea, its skewed to empower small states.... hence your statement made no sense
exactly, so eliminating the electoral college would then take away that empowerment of the smaller states... if the electoral college empowers the smaller states more than they "proportionally deserve" than eliminating it would unempower(?) them
On March 02 2012 04:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
I'm not mad because I don't think my vote makes a difference. In my OP, I state that is how I used to feel but now [rest of my OP].
I also have posted twice about things I can do to 'make a difference'. I explain my thoughts on how voting, protesting, or working in politics. If you see something I'm missing, please point it out.
And I probably should just leave this out, but seriously dude, if I work hard I'll turn Utah into a Democrat state? It would literally take the second coming of Christ for Utah to not vote Republican.
I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them.
I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes.
Money for research = good.
Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad.
dood either have a thread on elections or have a thread on lobbying in the policy making process
its impossible to discuss both simultaneously
And no there are not tons of loopholes (b4 citizens united), some, but not as rampant as you are implying. Every candidate before Obama took public funding for his presidential campaign.
Man, I'm just going where the flow takes me
Yes, every candidate takes money, which is kind of my point. Their election depends on their funding. They have to answer to the wealthy who are paying them. In return for their funding, whoever gave them the money will influence their policies in ways which serve the wealthy.
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.
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.
On March 02 2012 04:33 -Duderino- wrote: People in the U.S vote because thier individual vote doesnt matter but the American vote as a whole does. We vote because we feel we owe it to our fellow Americans who have the same believes as us. All the bashing of the American political system is so overblown. Yes it is chaotic and yes money and lobbying does influence it, BUT our political system has made us hands down the greatest country the world has ever seen and probally ever will. The American politcal system has given all Americans so much opportunity, freedom and wealth that the biggest politcal arguements of the day are based on gay rights and religon lol. Americans have so little problems that are biggest concern when voting is "what do they think about gay marriage" lol like a totally pointless topic, or "what is your plans for fixing these other countries like afghanistan iran and iraq", its not what is your plan for preventing American starvation or any of the other basic problems that many countries still face. So yes our system is a little crazy but until some other country comes close to besting it (which I strongly believe will not be in my lifetime), I will happily cast my useless vote and be proud to be an American.
I like lots of things about America, but I'd be careful about calling us the 'greatest country the world has ever seen'. I actually feel that America has only given 'so much opportunity, freedom, and wealth' to a certain few.
Lots of Americans have problems that aren't little, including starvation. My significant other is a social worker. Every day she is with people who are starving, ill and cannot receive care, and any number of problems that go along with being poor. These problems exist here.
And it easily proven that America is the best country
I agree America is a great nation in many ways, but there are many great nations. I'd be interested in hearing your proof.
You would have to give me awhile to write good report on why America is the greatest, But if you just look at some basic facts that I don't have citations for: American has to be the largest supplier of world aid, It helped win many a war for the better, It was just recently passed by china as the world largest producer but china has like 5 times as many peeps, Probaly still is the worlds largest consumer, we export are culture worldwide with our styles in music and movies and tv being copied by billions, No other country comes close to exporting freedom like the U.S we will give American lifes for chance of allowing peeps in other countries to live free, we have probaly contributed the most to science and technology, I can go on and on but the point i want to make is forieners should have a lil gratitude for america because no matter where they are from they are affected by america daily even if in an indirect way. And I cant even think of what other country would give the U.S a run for its money Britain mabye but I think we proved what country was better with the revolution, Germany? they blew ther chance wit hitler, China? they blew ther chance many a time, Japan? lol you see when you look at just the history of countires let alone there stance today noone holds the moral compass of the united states, and you can point several incidnets like slavery and vietnam but the united states has made amends and admitted its mistakes and you could even make an arguement that native americans and the vietnamese are better off today then they would have been witout the U.S. So point is get out and vote kids ^^
LOL. Not only are you demanding "foreigners" have gratitude but you believe we "export freedom"? We export any and all regimes to achieve global political goals.
Furthermore at the very bottom you leave a great ending "native americans and vietnamese are better off today". Lol? We gave Native Americans liquor, diseases and holed them into tiny plots of land without even full sovereignty with values completely alien to them (AKA many natives valued social capital rather than financial capital).
This is simply one of the most embarrassing posts I've ever read. I'm patriotic but for realistic reasons, not fairytale reasons.
Yes we export freedom and I can spend 5 min thinking up a hundred examples if you want, Obviously we do it to benefit ourselves but it is freedom nonetheless, You can say we started a war in Iraq for oil or wateva, but the end result?? Millions of Iraqis have more freedom today than they did under saddam hussien, ask any kurd if they believe america exports freedom and you will get a resounding yes. We export regimes for our politcal goals, but our politcal goals are largely based on freedom and saftey for the world, we prevented communist and terrorism while exporting freedom.
Yes its a stretch they are better off today but an argument can be made. native americans have medicine and technology that would not be close to having without the U.S. And im not an expert on the vietnam war but they very well could be better off if we had just let communism take over unhidered, maby the soviet union would still be wrecking havoc without the vietnam war.
And the thing is these are like the only 2 negatives that anti americans always choose to bash while ignoring the overwhelming amount of good the United States has done for the world.
Futhermore you should be ashamed for bashing your country, do you realise what it has done for you? Do you realise what your life would be like had you been born in china? Do you realise that the United States has treated you so well that you get to have a spoiled delusional opinion on why your country is so bad?
And wats your deal dude? this is post was embarrasing to you? I love the U.S and im proud to stand up for it lol
I am sure there are thousands of kids in iraq, afghanistan, vietnam etc etc etc ... who have lost their parents, but are really fucking glad you brought them democracy ( in exchange for impoverishing the country, stealing oil etc ... ). I am not so sure about native americans tho because if it wasn't for you they probably wouldn't have had many of those diseases in the first place, therefore not needing your medical help, or your technology for that matters, for i am certain they were just as happy if not more without it . Also, i doubt they're very happy about the fact that you literally decimated them. I am also certain that nuking japan twice, killing thousands of innocents civilians and turning those who were not fortunate enough to be killed on the spot into monsters, did not exactly please them.
I honestly don't know about freedom and democracy, i doubt it really makes that big of a difference when you indebt most countries who have something you want, but i'm pretty sure anyone with a brain would agree on how freaking disgusting your methods are, i mean, lying to the world and your people is one thing, sending your people to die in another country to increase the wealth of a small percentage of the population is another thing ( i mean you guys don't have a mandatory military service like south korea, people CHOOSE to be in the army ) but planning terrorist attacks on your own people to start a war, that's like really bad fucking news for your people. But maybe you're one of those who belive operation northwoods is a lie and the tonkin incident really happened. I'm out of here.
OH boy lol. Where to start??? First off i will emphaize my line that you quoted but didnt read apparently, "And the thing is these are like the only 2 negatives that anti americans always choose to bash while ignoring the overwhelming amount of good the United States has done for the world."
Second I will take up your arguments even though you saying the united states was behind 911 makes everything you said meaningless. Yes democracy and freedom come at a price. Yes there are kids in these countries who lost thier parents and they mite not like that trade for freedom but i gurantee you that there kids will be grateful for that trade.All Americans also have ancestors who died for freedom also. As for impovershiing the country you dont provide any facts to back that up, but its not Americas goal to hurt the economies of these countries when we provide them with freedom but yes it is often one of the costs. But when you look down the line these countries are often better off. I have no data on vietnam but i would wager they are better off now then they would have been, and i gurantee Iraq and afghanistan will be better off in 10 years than they would have been with no american intervention.
I have gotten stuck defeneding the two worst things america has ever done lol but, I would bet the native americans are better off today than they would have been they would probly still be raiding differnet tribes and makin human sacrafices today had it not been for the united states. And im sure if we hadnt nuked japan alot more japanese, chinese, and americans peeps woulda died.
Your last paragraph is to out there to debate. Also i like how your to ashamed to post what country your from but you will openly bash the u.s.
Also buddy you have a very strange hatred against the United States lol. Like i dont even hate the worst countries that bring nothing but evil to the world like north korea etc.. as much as you hate the United States lol (and the United States has hands down done more good for the world then any other country.
So now im not even intrested in the topic we need to start a new topic on how people become angry and distraught that they have to put all their troubles on the united states lol. Are you a terrorist buddy? did you spend years getting waterboarded by the U.S. cuz you just got a crazy hatred goin lol.
You talk about " the only 2 negatives the anti american choose ", i don't even know what 2 things you are referring to. You speak of the overwhelming amount of good you did, well that's the problem i don't really see it for the most part. I can't really see how kids would trade their parents for the USMC coming to their town killing everyone who has a gun and setting up " democracy " i do belive people can be happy while still being poor. I don't care if people have an radical islamist for president as long as people are happy and he doesn't harm anyone i don't see a problem. Freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins. I also find pretty disgusting that you prefer nuking innocent civilians to prevent more soldiers from being killed. You're basically saying it's okay to use WMDs on X country knowing that it kills indiscriminately armed soldiers and civilians if it can prevent more soldiers from dying. Isn't that like, the point ? That soldiers do war to protect civilians / so that they don't have to suffer ? You'll also note that i never said anywhere that the US hasn't done anything good.
I don't have any hatred against the united states of america, i've been to california, lived with a family in the san francisco bay and they were nice people. I do, however, hate uneducated kids who post stuff they don't know about, claim their country is the best in the world and has done so much for the world when in fact most people who have died and killed for it in the past decade did so to improve the wealth of a very few select individuals. I have no " trouble to put on the united states lol ". I am convinced that most of the countries you've invaded would have been better off without you, i don't recall anyone asking you to invade and kill, and i don't see how the so called " freedom" you gave them was any good for them. If people are happy the way things are why change it ?
I would invite you to read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins but you already didn't bother searching " operation northwoods " and assumed that when i talked about your own government wanting to stage terrorist attacks against us citizen i was referring to 9/11.
Now given that you want me to tell you where i come from so badly, given the amount of " lol " in your post and your last sentence i'm pretty sure you're a troll so i'll try to leave it at that.
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.
On March 02 2012 04:54 stokes17 wrote: [quote] I didn't see the 2 posts you are talking about.
So you admit you can put effort into accomplishing your political goals beyond voting? Then what is your issue. Voting takes no effort, why should it have an impact disproportional to how hard it is to do?
If you want to make an impact in politics get off your butt and do it, if you don't; IMO at the very least become informed and cast a ballot on election day. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, then I don't really see the use in voting; it won't hurt or anything, but its kinda a waste of time.
EDIT: about turning Utah blue. Don't be naive, of course you can't MAKE IT DEMOCRAT. But you can get a democrat elected as a state rep. And then the state senate. And if he performs really well there, why not get him elected as a Federal rep. 6 years and 3 elections won later, why can't he take on an open senate election? Like it happens dude. Look at Maine. State is extremely Blue with a republican Senate.
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them.
I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes.
Money for research = good.
Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad.
dood either have a thread on elections or have a thread on lobbying in the policy making process
its impossible to discuss both simultaneously
And no there are not tons of loopholes (b4 citizens united), some, but not as rampant as you are implying. Every candidate before Obama took public funding for his presidential campaign.
Man, I'm just going where the flow takes me
Yes, every candidate takes money, which is kind of my point. Their election depends on their funding. They have to answer to the wealthy who are paying them. In return for their funding, whoever gave them the money will influence their policies in ways which serve the wealthy.
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.
There are probably enough people like you that think its doesnt matter that if you all voted it might actually make a difference, its cant possibly hurt.
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.
pratically speaking, it is important where people live. we are generally governed and funded as citizens of states. people think of themselves and others as citizens of states.
Voting is the only power , you have. No vote , no opinion. You can't say F*** the health system , and not vote to change it...
You also can't say , there is no party that matches my beliefs.. you mean there is no party that is probably going to win that agrees with you. You vote for that , and if jack shit happens , it't the society's fault for getting deceived and not *googling* enought.
And if the guy you agree with gets elected and then does the complete opposite of what he said he would... You grab your torch.
Voting is everything , and seriously Why not vote? it only takes like 5 minutes.
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.
Then get involved, find like minded individuals and try to make something happen. I don't care if one vote doesn't count for shit, you have no right to complain if you aren't even going to bother, because if all of you nonvoters actually bothered to vote, you would completely change the system.
These people you are bitching about being in power, only stay in power because you let them.
On March 01 2012 10:37 DuckS wrote: The general state of our country and the politics behind it are depressing me more and more daily. People actually think the incumbent president have anything to do with gas prices rising. Media skews fact to pigeon hole into a predisposed opinion, or, just completely make up a fact. People follow and believe any of this media. Some people are just simply uninformed - despite living in a society where being properly informed is everything, and despite living in a society where education isn't that hard to obtain - through school, libraries, hell, the internet. We should be an informed society, not an information society.
Something i've taken a lot of pride in learning is finally collapsing before my eyes - economics. Economics itself is opinionated at times. Keynesian or Von Mises? People have a propensity to form an ideology of predisposition and then view that disposition through the lenses of the former of the latter.
We have politicians that think contraceptives is the important issue. We have politicians that preach "religious freedom," but want Christianity to be the basis of our policies, and form their opinions with that basis. We have politicians that propose new budgeting plan that would put us in a deeper recession. We have politicians that want to "preserve the sanctity of life," but want to cut social programs and forget about the sanctity of life after the life is actually taken form.
We've had politicians of that form become president, and we've had presidents cut taxes, even at illogical times, because their team thinks it's the right choice.
Sometimes, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
I wrote this in the letting off steam thread, this is basically how I feel. These people are supposed to be representing us, and pretty much control our lives. Feels bad man.. Makes me want to not live in America, to be quite honest. And it'll only get worse.
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.
Hmmmm. I'm saying that instead of not voting, you should spoil your paper instead. That way people cannot discredit you for not voting because in effect you have. Spoiling your paper is in effect a protest vote, a "none-of-the-above". They have to count spoiled papers you know! However, if you just stay at home instead of going to the polling station then they'll use that to discredit you. I completely agree with you, the old "if you don't vote you shouldn't complain" argument is utter nonsense. I don't want to vote for any of these politicians ffs!!!!!!!!
i agree. living in a state that will 100% always vote in the liberal stance, it's hard for my "voice" to be heard. And it's not like I'll always be conservative. I just feel that for the betterment of this country, AT THIS TIME, I think the policies stated by the Republican party (in general [I don't agree with a lot of it too]) is better than the Democrat stance.
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.
On March 02 2012 05:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
Here is a summary. I am brainstorming what average joe schmoe (me) can do to 'make a difference'. Suggestions welcome.
-Vote: We can argue about this one, but I feel pretty strongly that my vote either doesn't matter, or at best, has an infinitesimal effect.
-Protest: What did the recent 99% protests do? Got a lot of college kids arrested and feeling good about themselves. What did my protests back in 2005 about the war in Iraq do? Not much. The only successful, large-scale example I can think of is the African-American civil rights movement, and that took tens of millions of people and 300 years.
-Work in politics: I quit my career and work for a campaign/party/run for office myself. I have no money, I have no political connections. I can dedicate my life to it and work day and night, and probably make some impact, but the general system in place will be unchanged.
Um, I have worked on various campaigns at the state and county level while going to university full time and working a job in the summer. I think I've helped a few people who I believe in get elected. I feel the effort I put in (like 10-15 hours a week in summer and half that during the school year... although I haven't done any work during school since freshman year) is equal to the influence I get out. There is certainly grey area between, apathetic uninformed observer and career politician....
Like yea dood if you want to be a power player in National Politics you will need to make it a career and put in probably a decade at the state level. Unless you want to rise to national prominence in another field and "make the jump." This is basically true for any field. You don't wake up with a PhD, or with a hedge fund to manage. Further just because you have a PhD doesn't mean you will get published in nationally recognized journals. You put in a ton of effort. Nothing that is powerful is easy.
If you want national political Influence you need to work hard for it, either through making a ton of money in the private sector, or by getting your ass on the ground and working HARD. If you want state level influence, you need to be a successful individual who can host a fund raiser for $150-250 a head and draw ~100 people, or someone who's held a county level position for a few terms/worked on a county level campaign. You need either a track record at the level directly below where you want to run, or you need money, or you need a ton of effort (Obama style... well really Howard Dean style, but he's crazy so...)
If you have no money and have no desire to put effort into it. Then you can be an informed observer. Spend an hour a day during the week (not at once, ya know 20 here, 15 here) catching up on the political news for the day. Then on the weekend familiarize yourself with concepts and issues you read about but didn't fully understand. Use multiple sources that have opposing biases. Now you can go to town hall meetings (county/state level) and ask informed questions and get people to clap for you if you really pinch a guy. At the very least you will understand the political process better.
I agree I could get involved with local politics and have a noticeable impact, but my OP is talking about national elections, and the fact that money is king regarding US policy-making.
Like I've said multiple times.... to have influence at the national level you need to do 1 of 2 things
1. Have track record either as a candidate or a staffer working at the state level for a number of years (and the county level before that in many cases) So people will fund your campaign (Obama Method, if you will) Note that this does not involve you being personally wealthy, or you being put in the pocket of some mogul/billionaire
2. Have a ton of money from personal success in the private sector (the Mitt Romney, method if you will) to fund your own campaign
If you want to argue about whether or not money should be involved in politics, i see no point, it has been and will be forever.
Now by talking about policy making you are changing the ball game from elections to actual administration and legislation. I feel like that is worthy of a separate thread. But in a line, I agree, Lobbying in its current form is disgusting and actively impedes any governmental progress.
But as far as elections go, you do not need to be independently wealthy to win elections, even at the national level. Yes, will need some semblance of personal success, just like in literally every other field, but top .1%er wealth is not needed, even at the national level.
Plenty of congressmen/women are not millionaires is the main point I'm making I suppose. And are not backed by millionaires either.
I'm not claiming that you must be personally wealthy to be elected, but that the wealthy will pump money into your campaign if it serves their interests ---> Religion funds candidate who reflects their views, like when the LDS church paid millions a couple of years back to help kill a same-sex marriage bill in California.
To summarize again, I feel that regardless of who I vote for, regardless of who wins, it is all the same. People who are very wealthy, and have probably had the money for generations, will continue to fund campaigns, lobbyists, and assorted organizations to serve their own interest.
You realize most campaign contributions are small donors. If you want to talk lobbying and policy thats for another thread... until citizens united, the situation you're describing is not terribly accurate for election campaign contributions.
As for your general point yes people and institutions spend money on there interests. But, let me give you an example:
I work in a Neurophysiology research lab that studies timing in rats (don't ask it'll take a year to explain ) Our goal is to be published in a leading national journal. To do that we needed a large grant to fund our research. To get a grant we need to demonstrate to the grant organization (the national health institute in this case) that our research will benefit them in some way. Obviously we chose the NHI because we felt our views aligned, and they agreed and gave us 250k
Now would you like to argue that Money and private interests are dictating psychological research to the point that the whole research system is broken? I would not
If you substitute journal for Senate seat, and NHI with the Teamsters. Then ... ta da.
My point is that as a campaigner, I would seek out supports who I think would agree with my guy. Trying to mold your guy into whoever your potential supporter wants will screw you (Romney is learning this).
I guarantee there is someone with influence who's agenda lines up with yours.
If you can give me an example where someone is elected without effort (which is money) in any democratic nation, I'd be very interested
Campaign contributions is a controversial and shady aspect of US politics. Laws exist to make campaign contributions small, but we both know there are many loopholes that are used to get around them.
I don't think the analogy is quite as cut and dry. I also work for a lab that applies for grants and funding from the government and various organizations. The difference between our labs and US policy making is where that money goes.
Money for research = good.
Money used to elect officials who will pass policies that will make them more money = bad.
dood either have a thread on elections or have a thread on lobbying in the policy making process
its impossible to discuss both simultaneously
And no there are not tons of loopholes (b4 citizens united), some, but not as rampant as you are implying. Every candidate before Obama took public funding for his presidential campaign.
Man, I'm just going where the flow takes me
Yes, every candidate takes money, which is kind of my point. Their election depends on their funding. They have to answer to the wealthy who are paying them. In return for their funding, whoever gave them the money will influence their policies in ways which serve the wealthy.
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.
On March 02 2012 06:00 Excomm wrote: Your vote counts the same as any other individual in the US. It doesn't matter how much money they have or how educated they are. The only reason not to vote is if you are 100% apathetic about all of the candidates and would be fine with every single policy in thier campaign platforms.
Just because Congress doesn't do anything it isn't paid for (and then still doesn't do anything) doesn't mean your vote counts any less.
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
well if you don't vote, then you give them all the more power.
Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!
actually, by removing the electoral college, you would make the votes of many of the smaller states completely negligable. four or five states would have all the power and the other states would be completely out of luck. the electoral college actually gives the people more power.
Electors are proportional to population....your statement makes no sense
Actually votes do not count the same, and I will explain why (it is the reason that I do not believe in voting):
Basically smaller states have a lot more weight to their votes than larger states. This is because the amount of points that states have in the electoral college is based off of both population as well as two points for every states two seats in the senate For large states like CA these two extra points do not mean very much. Instead of 53 points based on only population they have they have 55. Smaller states however that would only have 1 point from population instead gain an extra 2 points making a total of 3. This is 300% of what they would have if the system was based solely on population. This means that even though a state like Wyoming (population: 600,000) may have 1/60 the population that CA (population: 38,000,000) does they have more than 1/20 of the voting power. This means that every citizen of wyoming has 3 times as much say as a voter in CA.
When I first learned about this from my American Politics professor in university I remember the actual proportion being something more along the lines the vote of a CA citizen being about 1/10 of that of a citizen from one of the smaller states (I do not remember which one). The system is far from fair.
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 06:49 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.
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 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
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 ...
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 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."
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.
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.
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...
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.
i don't value direct democracy as much as you, obviously. niether did the founders of this country. i value the system giving fair representation to everyone, and for the reasons i have outlined, the electoral college does that better than a direct democracy could. what i propose is a form of democracy, indirect democracy. no need to come up with another name for it, because the name already exists.
it's not juyst campaigning, it's the fact of federal funding, federal decisions, taxes, interests, etc. smaller states would have much less political power, and i do not believe that the people in those states should have less power. an electoral college gives them more equal power, in practice, than a direct democracy does. i don't believe everyone has the right to have their vote have the same absolute value as someone else. but in practice, the electoral college actually gives us a more equal system, and makes our votes more equal.
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.
in your system the votes of the larger states would, in practice, "count more" than those of the small states. i dont believe that is fair.
The media coverage and campaign money problem for third party candidates (or ron paul) could be solved by the internet and youth. If they'd get organized, young people that do believe in change (other than Obama's thing) could do an organized campaign with streamlined slogans, pretty flyers and soap box speeches. You only got one way to get out of the two party system and that is by raising awareness in the sheeple. Those who like to consume in mass, what is made for the mass. So you need mass.
It is easy to say that the rich control everything and for a lot of things they probably do. But as a group our vote does count and has an effect on a lot of things.
I feel sad that the voting rate for people in their 20s is so low. And then we wonder why our generation gets repeatedly screwed over on a lot of things, like the debt, social security, medicare, internet freedoms, etc.
A politician's first job is to get re-elected. And if they know that our generation for the most part is not going to vote, then why would they serve our interests? If, let's say, someone aged 60+ is twice as likely to vote than someone 20-30, then essentially a 60+ person is twice as important to the politician than a 20-30 person.
Think about how every politician (especially Dems) is scared of touching social security / medicare because they know they will take a huge hit from the senior population vote.
I would guess that 90+% of people younger than 30 are staunchly against SOPA/PIPA/ACTA, but I am scared that the following few years represents the ideal time for the government to get this type of legislation through. Many people 50+ are not dependent on the internet like we are, and probably do not pay attention to these things. But hopefully this will change fast.
I wish every person that matches my demographic will vote (especially in age). Even if you don't vote for who I want, you will add to the statistics that politicians pay attention to.
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?
Because that president I hate beat that other candidate I hated.
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?
Because that president I hate beat that other candidate I hated.
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?
this is actually a very accurate representation of how i feel, too
me 3 i hate capitalism and i hope for a country that is equal but doesn't pull a josef stalin on us...
That's a common misconception of America, when considering the electoral process, at least. We're not a Democracy at all in that respect.
If we were a Democracy, our representatives wouldn't decide anything, just argue, and we would vote on every decision period. Instead, we elect officials to make these decisions.
We're a Republic. <3
Of course, that's in name, in practice, corruption and such make such things obsolete, so.... But just dispelling that myth.
To all of you saying that you won't bother to vote because your one vote won't change a thing: Imagine this:
In 2012 you waste your vote on one of the "third" parties or independents, the ones who never get enough votes and never make a difference. And right you were, only about 1% of the votes was for someone else than Republicans or Democrats. So you wasted your vote, but you would've done that anyway by not voting, so it's no big deal.
However, you feel good about voting, so you set up a web page, telling people that "If you're not going to vote, if you're going to waste your vote, then waste it in protest! Vote for someone who is not of the two big parties!" and, somehow, you web page gets quiet a few number of hits. A zealous teenager comes along and really drives the "Vote in protest!" campaign forward.
In 2016, amazingly, the independents get 3% of the votes. Still utterly insignificant, but it's still an increase of 300% from four years before. Some newspaper mention the "Vote in protest!" campaign in passing and your web site explodes with traffic. Moreover, since you wouldn't have voted anyway, it didn't matter that you wasted your vote.
In 2020, the independents gain a whooping 7% of the votes, which is of course totally useless. A newspaper analyst says that this coincides with a roughly 6% increase in voter turnout over the last 8 years, meaning that these independent voters were not Democrat voters or Republican voters who were convinced otherwise, they were simply people who never voted who had begun to vote. You launch your new slogan: "Get off the couch and waste your vote differently!".
However, in 2021, a political party (let's call it The Opposition Party) picks up on the massive potential of the non-voters. They make it their one message: To vote in order to vote for someone else than the Republicans and Democrats. You, not wanting to pick any sides, still continue your "Waste your vote differently" campaign.
In 2024, The Opposition Party gets 6% of the votes and another 5% goes to independents. Although no one of them are above 10%, more than 10% of the votes actually went to someone else than the Republicans or Democrats.
In 2026, The Opposition Party get one Representative into the House of Representatives. It's the first time in a great many years that someone else than Republicans or Democrats were in the House of Representatives.
During the presidential elections in 2028, a talk show host makes the mistake to ask one of the candidates about his view on The Opposition Party, and the candidate makes the mistake of ridiculing it outright instead of scoffing it off. Having had the candidate talk about The Opposition Party for so long, people suddenly get the crazy idea that it's actually a feasible option. That year, The Oppostion Party gets 15% of the votes.
In 2032, The Opposition Party find themselves with a 16% representation in the House of Representatives. Suddenly, they have become a factor that the Republicans and Democrats have to make compromises with, in order to get their own policy through. In exchange, some of the Opposition Party's policies get through.
In 2032, The Oppostion Party finds itself a relevant factor in the issues leading up to the election. Its policies are actually being discussed by the other two parties. They get 18% of the votes.
After the vote for House of Representatives in 2034, The Opposition Party has one single policy that it refuses to back off of when negotiating policies with the Republicans and Democrats: A referendum for changing the voting system to better accompany a multi-party system. They have to make a lot of politically costly compromises, but the referendum is going to be held the next year.
In 2035, you walk down to the voting office to vote for a new voting system along with your wife and son. Your son's friends say that it's no use voting because one vote won't change a thing and you start to tell him about your web page and the rise of The Opposition Party and how that changed the two-party system that-- -"You had only two parties?", he asks? -"Yeah, that's right, only two", you answer. -"How did that work? Wouldn't the biggest one just decide everything?", he asks. -"Well, …", you begin, but your son interrupts you. -"And if they didn't agree one something, how did they do it if there wasn't any third party to do compromises with?", he adds. And at that point you realize that your son has no clue about how things were in the early 2000's, simply because he wasn't born yet. And you feel old, very old, but you realize that something was changed and that your son will get to live in a country that is a little more like the one you wished you had lived in when you were young, and you feel that the world isn't such a bad place after all. Then the old slogan comes back to you: "Vote in protest!" and you chuckle a little. But then you stop chuckling, because at that point you realize that with the way things were going, you didn't really waste any votes. In fact, they were all a part of the change that happened during the last 25 years. And then you feel immensely glad that you voted back in 2012.
-- Or, you could sit at home and not vote because your one vote isn't going to change a thing anyway. A wasted vote is a wasted vote, however you look at it. You're not going to waste several hours of a day every 730 days voting, just on the off chance that it's actually going to make a difference sometime in the future. You have better things to do.
And in 2034, The Republicans win with 51% of the votes against the Democrats' 47%, with 2% going to the independents.
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?
Because that president I hate beat that other candidate I hated.
I think we're back to the douche/turd argument.
Haven't you posted the same things enough over and over, or do you still have more repeating yourself to do? This thread is half actual responses and half you quoting everyone you can find who disagrees with you.
Don't you think once you start getting to the "Lol retards always win" and "douche/turd argument" levels you've done enough?
On March 02 2012 07:34 iMAniaC wrote: To all of you saying that you won't bother to vote because your one vote won't change a thing: Imagine this:
In 2012 you waste your vote on one of the "third" parties or independents, the ones who never get enough votes and never make a difference. And right you were, only about 1% of the votes was for someone else than Republicans or Democrats. So you wasted your vote, but you would've done that anyway by not voting, so it's no big deal.
However, you feel good about voting, so you set up a web page, telling people that "If you're not going to vote, if you're going to waste your vote, then waste it in protest! Vote for someone who is not of the two big parties!" and, somehow, you web page gets quiet a few number of hits. A zealous teenager comes along and really drives the "Vote in protest!" campaign forward.
In 2016, amazingly, the independents get 3% of the votes. Still utterly insignificant, but it's still an increase of 300% from four years before. Some newspaper mention the "Vote in protest!" campaign in passing and your web site explodes with traffic. Moreover, since you wouldn't have voted anyway, it didn't matter that you wasted your vote.
In 2020, the independents gain a whooping 7% of the votes, which is of course totally useless. A newspaper analyst says that this coincides with a roughly 6% increase in voter turnout over the last 8 years, meaning that these independent voters were not Democrat voters or Republican voters who were convinced otherwise, they were simply people who never voted who had begun to vote. You launch your new slogan: "Get off the couch and waste your vote differently!".
However, in 2021, a political party (let's call it The Opposition Party) picks up on the massive potential of the non-voters. They make it their one message: To vote in order to vote for someone else than the Republicans and Democrats. You, not wanting to pick any sides, still continue your "Waste your vote differently" campaign.
In 2024, The Opposition Party gets 6% of the votes and another 5% goes to independents. Although no one of them are above 10%, more than 10% of the votes actually went to someone else than the Republicans or Democrats.
In 2026, The Opposition Party get one Representative into the House of Representatives. It's the first time in a great many years that someone else than Republicans or Democrats were in the House of Representatives.
During the presidential elections in 2028, a talk show host makes the mistake to ask one of the candidates about his view on The Opposition Party, and the candidate makes the mistake of ridiculing it outright instead of scoffing it off. Having had the candidate talk about The Opposition Party for so long, people suddenly get the crazy idea that it's actually a feasible option. That year, The Oppostion Party gets 15% of the votes.
In 2032, The Opposition Party find themselves with a 16% representation in the House of Representatives. Suddenly, they have become a factor that the Republicans and Democrats have to make compromises with, in order to get their own policy through. In exchange, some of the Opposition Party's policies get through.
In 2032, The Oppostion Party finds itself a relevant factor in the issues leading up to the election. Its policies are actually being discussed by the other two parties. They get 18% of the votes.
After the vote for House of Representatives in 2034, The Opposition Party has one single policy that it refuses to back off of when negotiating policies with the Republicans and Democrats: A referendum for changing the voting system to better accompany a multi-party system. They have to make a lot of politically costly compromises, but the referendum is going to be held the next year.
In 2035, you walk down to the voting office to vote for a new voting system along with your wife and son. Your son's friends say that it's no use voting because one vote won't change a thing and you start to tell him about your web page and the rise of The Opposition Party and how that changed the two-party system that-- -"You had only two parties?", he asks? -"Yeah, that's right, only two", you answer. -"How did that work? Wouldn't the biggest one just decide everything?", he asks. -"Well, …", you begin, but your son interrupts you. -"And if they didn't agree one something, how did they do it if there wasn't any third party to do compromises with?", he adds. And at that point you realize that your son has no clue about how things were in the early 2000's, simply because he wasn't born yet. And you feel old, very old, but you realize that something was changed and that your son will get to live in a country that is a little more like the one you wished you had lived in when you were young, and you feel that the world isn't such a bad place after all. Then the old slogan comes back to you: "Vote in protest!" and you chuckle a little. But then you stop chuckling, because at that point you realize that with the way things were going, you didn't really waste any votes. In fact, they were all a part of the change that happened during the last 25 years. And then you feel immensely glad that you voted back in 2012.
-- Or, you could sit at home and not vote because your one vote isn't going to change a thing anyway. A wasted vote is a wasted vote, however you look at it. You're not going to waste several hours of a day every 730 days voting, just on the off chance that it's actually going to make a difference sometime in the future. You have better things to do.
And in 2034, The Republicans win with 51% of the votes against the Democrats' 47%, with 2% going to the independents.
Sooo.... is that an argument for or against voting?
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.
in your system the votes of the larger states would, in practice, "count more" than those of the small states. i dont believe that is fair.
No they don't, I've already explained it, and your argument is simply 'oh but campaigns!'. It's ridiculous.
In this election, I believe it would be wrong to vote. I believe all Republican candidates would be at least, or probably around as evil as Obama. However, if the majority of people believed this, the candidates would be different.
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.
This is because you aren't engaged in your local political processes that selects your representatives. Lobbyists etc may be able to wine and dine these people but ultimately we control whether or not they get wined or dined at all. You make it an acceptable practice when you don't participate
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.
This is because you aren't engaged in your local political processes that selects your representatives. Lobbyists etc may be able to wine and dine these people but ultimately we control whether or not they get wined or dined at all. You make it an acceptable practice when you don't participate
Explain to me how becoming engaged in my local political processes will prevent lobbyists from having a strong influence in Washington.
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?
Are really trying to say that donating money to someone you support is the same as buying influence? Get a clue
Once I give his people my check I'm done. I don't get to call Obama or talk to anyone in his administration over policy matters. By donating to a campaign I am not lobbying. If a lobbyist tried to gain influence that way, he would be broke and out of a job.
So for the last time, the vast majority of donations are under 200 dollars. Even 5 and 6 figure donations buy you absolutely 0 influence. Contributing to a campaign is really not at all the same as lobbying. And money is not the biggest issue with US politics
Grid locking lobbyist behavior and the 24 hour news cycle are the major issues.
To give an example of effective lobbying behavior, since you seriously don't get it: Tax Free America (featured on the daily show this week in an awesome bit by samantha bee) is a Power Player in DC lobbying. They have so much power because they have convinced hundreds (not all still serving) congressmen/women to sign a pledge to not raise taxes. This 1 sheet of paper puts a congressperson in your pocket 100x more effectively than any amount of money you could donate to their campaign, because now if they do raise taxes you have a piece of paper making them a liar.
You tell me what's more effective- "Congressman X took 70K of my dollars at a fund raiser with 100 other people but then he didn't do what i asked him to when i shook his hand for 5 seconds. Congressman X lied to me" OR "Congressman X make an explicit pledge to the American People, a Pledge that over 300 congressman have made, and he is the first out of over 300 congressman to go back on HIS WORD to the American people. Congressman X is a bold faced liar who will say and sign whatever it takes to get into office."
Like I'm sorry, If you think private individuals who made large campaign contributions have any influence in national politics, you're wrong. And Corporations until citizens united (X__X) were extremely limited in how they could influence campaigns.
This is what people literally gave their life for? People took up arms and gave their life for the right to determine their own destiny. People believed that the right for the people to rule over their own country was so important that they were willing to fight and die for it.
Que this generation.
I hate bashing on the "new" generation like some 20 year old wanna-be-grandpa, but damn it if I don't like to be a hypocrite.
This trend has been on the rise for a while now. People have begun to confuse cynicism for intelligence. The darkest, most grim opinion is considered the most accurate, the most well informed. Surely our world must be corrupted at the core. Surely the termites are eating the foundation from under us.
We want the world to be shit so we gravitate towards the most cynic view and proclaim it to be the height of intelligence.
Tell me, what do you people even do? Stop pretending like you are some crusader for democracy when you are sitting on your ass at home. Stop pretending like you are fighting "corruption" by sitting on your ass and not voting. Stop pretending like you are doing the right thing by sitting on your fat ass at home, crying about how everything is corrupt and actually making fun of people that go out and take part in the democratic process.
I must applaud this new generation for how they have turned their own laziness and idiocy into a virtue. They sit at home, decide not to vote, and then they rationlize it to themselves. Here is a wake-up call for you:
You aren't not voting because you are so smart. You aren't not voting because you wanna stick it to the man. You aren't not voting you believe the democractic system is a frace.
You aren't voting because you are lazy. You want to finish that game of Starcraft. You want to watch another movie. You want to watch another episode of your favorite series. Hell, you just want to look at the wall for an extra hour.
You are lazy, that is why you don't vote. The disgusting prevalence of pseudo-intellectualism is what causes this generation to justify their lazy behaviour by pretending it to be the height of political resistance. It is like the conspiracy theorist that pretends he is so smart, simply because he doesn't watch the news, instead reading some tinfoil blog once a week that tells him the Illuminati is still out there.
And it doesn't extent to just voting. You begin to convince yourself the entire system is a farce. You tell yourself how you are actually being a productive member of society by not reading any newspapers or watching any news.
The less you do, the smarter you feel.
Now some of you might feel offended. How dare he call me lazy, I am actively fighting for democracy by watching another episode of HIMYM instead of going out to vote.
The truth is, deep down you know you don't give a shit about politics. You don't give a shit about democracy. If you truly felt that the system was corrupt you would go out and do something about it. You would join some movement to bring attention to your issues, hell, you would start one yourself.
But you don't. You sit on your ass at home. You don't do shit and you call it activism. You pretend to care about democracy, but all you do is sit at home and feel smug for not voting.
Shame on all of you that would bury democracy out of laziness. Shame on the liars that cloak their laziness as activism.
George Orwell took a bullet to the throat in his fight against fascism. What did you do?
What's pathetic is how you just sidestepped the utterly obvious to angrily misrepresent people's views and call everyone lazy.
1) You don't need to vote to contribute to or better society 2) On that note, it's an assumption to claim if people don't vote they are lazy, since those people might be working hard toward bettering society in other ways. 3) I work 55-60 hour work weeks. So do many others. But you're right, otherwise hardworking motivated and devoted people probably don't vote because they're lazy. 4) Your claims of "pseudo intellectualism" crack me up, particularly as they are rested on wild assumptions about "the man," "not reading any newspapers," and the "illuminati" (wat?) 5) Your claim that I don't care about politics is just wrong. I spend a lot of energy getting pissed off by the stupidity of both our leaders and the general population. I do care a great deal about the direction both my country and humanity takes. It's not right to suggest I don't care if I don't vote, when voting often has zero effect, other than an affirmation of your "Americana." 6) Influencing voters = giving the little people what they want, regardless of what's best. In some cases it's about bitching about gays in the military, in some cases it's about spouting off inane platitudes about being a hockey mom or whatever, in other cases it's about just saying retarded crap about how "we're the greatest nation EV-ER" amidst critical problems and failings. If you wanna pride yourself on being an irrelevant voice amidst the tidal wave of the uninformed when there are better solutions (as I will explain in my following paragraph) be my guest, but don't tell me I'm lazy or trying to project intellect that isn't there if I choose not to.
Let me tell you something else. If the public could vote on anything and everything, the teaching of evolution would be banned in Utah, Mexicans would be ousted from some areas of the USA, blacks would return to the cotton fields in other areas, and in other areas women would stay at home instead of working. Do you know what the difference is? It's a basic rule of law, a bill of rights, a constitution, whatever you wanna call it. A perpetually evolving view of what is right/wrong or most inclusive in society. Do you know how these things are often changed? It's an active public in groups lobbying politicians to make changes for the better. This is a very important element of democracy and the freedom to speak/protest that goes beyond just voting. There's another thread on TL right now about how feminists in France have succeeded in abolishing Mademoiselle from legal documentation through continuous lobbying. I guess in your estimation those people are lazy and don't care about politics if they didn't vote right?
Seriously, don't post nonsense like this, it's just an incorrect and embarrassing series of assumptions and misrepresentations.
I understand what the OP is saying, but I don't personally agree with it. It's easy to say there's no hope and not participate in elections. It's easy to bitch about all the "retards" and "dumb shits" that aren't you. It's much more difficult to try and make an informed decision, and maybe realize you were misguided, or misinformed at some point in the future. Maybe you made an informed decision that melds with your own personal philosophy on life.
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.
On March 02 2012 07:25 Badjas wrote: The media coverage and campaign money problem for third party candidates (or ron paul) could be solved by the internet and youth. If they'd get organized, young people that do believe in change (other than Obama's thing) could do an organized campaign with streamlined slogans, pretty flyers and soap box speeches. You only got one way to get out of the two party system and that is by raising awareness in the sheeple. Those who like to consume in mass, what is made for the mass. So you need mass.
My heart goes out to you guys.
The infrastructure needed to run a national campaign is simply not in place anywhere beyond the 2 main parties.
You elude to it in your post; just because there are 2 parties doesn't mean there are only 2 agendas. Ron Paul is an example of a republican who has an agenda that is starkly different than Romney's for example. Further, a staunch Tea party-er will have an agenda that is different from the previous two.
a much more effective strategy would be to attempt to evolve the image of one of the 2 major parties from the inside out (Marco Rubio is basically doing this in Florida)
Your suggestion to run a mainstream campaign against the 2 parties who have been running main stream campaigns for 80 years would be like slamming your head against the wall. It would be much easier to identify with one of the parties and change policy from within as you gain influence by moving up the chain, Again Rubio wields influence well beyond his years(no1 ever listens to freshman senators) and is using it to change the Republican party in Florida. (and his totally gonna be the VP for Romney in the general)
Neither party has as stark agenda lines as you seem to be insinuating.
On March 02 2012 05:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
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?
Are really trying to say that donating money to someone you support is the same as buying influence? Get a clue
Once I give his people my check I'm done. I don't get to call Obama or talk to anyone in his administration over policy matters. By donating to a campaign I am not lobbying. If a lobbyist tried to gain influence that way, he would be broke and out of a job.
So for the last time, the vast majority of donations are under 200 dollars. Even 5 and 6 figure donations buy you absolutely 0 influence. Contributing to a campaign is really not at all the same as lobbying. And money is not the biggest issue with US politics
Grid locking lobbyist behavior and the 24 hour news cycle are the major issues.
To give an example of effective lobbying behavior, since you seriously don't get it: Tax Free America (featured on the daily show this week in an awesome bit by samantha bee) is a Power Player in DC lobbying. They have so much power because they have convinced hundreds (not all still serving) congressmen/women to sign a pledge to not raise taxes. This 1 sheet of paper puts a congressperson in your pocket 100x more effectively than any amount of money you could donate to their campaign, because now if they do raise taxes you have a piece of paper making them a liar.
You tell me what's more effective- "Congressman X took 70K of my dollars at a fund raiser with 100 other people but then he didn't do what i asked him to when i shook his hand for 5 seconds. Congressman X lied to me" OR "Congressman X make an explicit pledge to the American People, a Pledge that over 300 congressman have made, and he is the first out of over 300 congressman to go back on HIS WORD to the American people. Congressman X is a bold faced liar who will say and sign whatever it takes to get into office."
Like I'm sorry, If you think private individuals who made large campaign contributions have any influence in national politics, you're wrong. And Corporations until citizens united (X__X) were extremely limited in how they could influence campaigns.
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.
The time investment of researching the candidates and casting my vote isn't worth the value I feel my vote has. Almost never is the poll decided by a single vote, so my individual vote will almost never count, and I value my time too much to waste it on a vote that probably will not matter at all.
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.
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
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.
in your system the votes of the larger states would, in practice, "count more" than those of the small states. i dont believe that is fair.
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.
honestly i hear people say all the time that they dont vote because one vote doesnt matter. this simply isnt true. every vote matters, and every person with a political oppinion and some friends matters. if you vote democrat, and you talk with your coworkers at lunch and then they vote democrat, and you talk with your family and they vote democrat, and all of them do the same, then you just made a big difference.
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?
Are really trying to say that donating money to someone you support is the same as buying influence? Get a clue
Once I give his people my check I'm done. I don't get to call Obama or talk to anyone in his administration over policy matters. By donating to a campaign I am not lobbying. If a lobbyist tried to gain influence that way, he would be broke and out of a job.
So for the last time, the vast majority of donations are under 200 dollars. Even 5 and 6 figure donations buy you absolutely 0 influence. Contributing to a campaign is really not at all the same as lobbying. And money is not the biggest issue with US politics
Grid locking lobbyist behavior and the 24 hour news cycle are the major issues.
To give an example of effective lobbying behavior, since you seriously don't get it: Tax Free America (featured on the daily show this week in an awesome bit by samantha bee) is a Power Player in DC lobbying. They have so much power because they have convinced hundreds (not all still serving) congressmen/women to sign a pledge to not raise taxes. This 1 sheet of paper puts a congressperson in your pocket 100x more effectively than any amount of money you could donate to their campaign, because now if they do raise taxes you have a piece of paper making them a liar.
You tell me what's more effective- "Congressman X took 70K of my dollars at a fund raiser with 100 other people but then he didn't do what i asked him to when i shook his hand for 5 seconds. Congressman X lied to me" OR "Congressman X make an explicit pledge to the American People, a Pledge that over 300 congressman have made, and he is the first out of over 300 congressman to go back on HIS WORD to the American people. Congressman X is a bold faced liar who will say and sign whatever it takes to get into office."
Like I'm sorry, If you think private individuals who made large campaign contributions have any influence in national politics, you're wrong. And Corporations until citizens united (X__X) were extremely limited in how they could influence campaigns.
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.
Well, at least in Canada, I know that their are some ridings where elections for a member of parliament can be very close. Like when the Liberal and Conservative parties both have a member who has near the same number of ballots cast; the difference can be a small as 10 votes. I think it might be a good idea to vote, just because on the off chance that that sort of situation occurs in your riding (or the US equivalent, assuming its possible to have these tight direct democracy-like outcomes) it can make a difference.
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.
1916 - Woodrow Wilson defeated his opponent by less than one vote per precinct in a single state.
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.
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.
I don't vote. I want to exercise my power to vote, but I look at the candidates, and see no-one worth voting for. No, the person doesn't have to cater to every one of my opinions. But I cannot stand those who bid for power, which is pretty much all of the candidates. They are selfish before they are self-sacrificing.
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.
On March 02 2012 03:30 philosophize wrote: like it or not that's the system in place. it's more or less all you get. i know the urge to opt out is powerful, and feeling of powerlessness/hopelessness make participating the last thing you want to do...but sometimes what you want or feel like doing and what the best thing to do actually is are incongruent...
i think that if you actually want to change anything about how fucked up the system is, doing nothing...well, does nothing.
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
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.
I personally have no intention to vote, either. My vote doesn't matter, and frankly I don't care ENOUGH about any issues to go out and waste my time at the ballet machine. I'd have to care a lot to do it, of course.
To not vote because 1 vote seems irrelevant is a flawed logic. You must not think of yourself as an individual, but as a representative of the group of people that share your values and your opinions. It is absolutely imperetive that everyone who can vote does vote, so that the overall wishes of the population are represented.
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.
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.
Holy shit, didnt realize the voter turnout was that insanely low in the US. Its usually around 80-85 here in sweden and i thought that could have been abit higher. But being around 50% in the US thats just...wow, democracy at work.
On March 02 2012 03:00 mastergriggy wrote: Most people don't vote. From what I hear the percentage gets lower and lower too. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that most people don't prescribe to either of the two candidates policies, and therefore don't think voting is worth it or don't feel compelled to vote in the first place.
And this will never change if people don't vote. In fact, it will only get worse.
Instead of not voting at all, just don't be afraid to vote for a third party. The whole reason that the two-party system is so well entrenched is because its so well entrenched. Its a vicious cycle, and the only way to break it is to vote for who you actually want, not just who is the lesser of two evils.
Ron Paul is getting my vote whether he wins the Republican nomination or not.
i love how you specifically called out Long-boarders over regular skaters. Thank you for that, the real skateboarding community appreciates you for that.
On March 02 2012 03:00 mastergriggy wrote: Most people don't vote. From what I hear the percentage gets lower and lower too. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that most people don't prescribe to either of the two candidates policies, and therefore don't think voting is worth it or don't feel compelled to vote in the first place.
And this will never change if people don't vote. In fact, it will only get worse.
Instead of not voting at all, just don't be afraid to vote for a third party. The whole reason that the two-party system is so well entrenched is because its so well entrenched. Its a viscous cycle, and the only way to break it is to vote for who you actually want, not just who is the lesser of two evils.
Ron Paul is getting my vote whether he wins the Republican nomination or not.
and this is the exact reason i don't vote. what happens when you vote for someone not on the ballot? nothing. nothing at all happens. voting for ron paul if he doesn't win the nomination (he won't) is the same thing as voting for jesus, or my dad, you get the picture.
There's not really a point except in unusual/exceptional cases. The system in the US is made by design to maximize the wasted vote effect and favor incumbents. Gerrymandering is the norm in most states, and a recent Supreme Court decision even affirmed it is fine to redistrict in whatever manner however often a state wishes to, not just after censuses - which kind of defeat the nonpartisan point of redistricting.
Hell, international observation groups that were present in the US during I think the 2004 election cycle even commented how the US system was designed to make elections as non-competitive as possible.
past "few" years? wasn't reagan a wild west movie-star, and that's quite some years ago. I think it's always been like this, it's just that people were seriously alot easier to dupe back then. Now most people have some awareness atleast.
You answered your question in your OP .... we vote because we don't like how things are, sure things don't always change but its not like Russia where votes are not counted and Putin is going to win no matter what, at least our votes count.
I vote because it is really the only concrete thing i can do to change the government. While I believe the OP has great points, I still feel like all the people who feel this way need to vote so our elected officials aren't representative of a noisy minority that actually participate in government. It is a pretty messed up system though, and there is no excuse for it to be that way (I mean the US gov can detain a US citizen indefinitely without trial if they are suspected of terrorism).
On March 02 2012 03:00 mastergriggy wrote: Most people don't vote. From what I hear the percentage gets lower and lower too. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that most people don't prescribe to either of the two candidates policies, and therefore don't think voting is worth it or don't feel compelled to vote in the first place.
And this will never change if people don't vote. In fact, it will only get worse.
Instead of not voting at all, just don't be afraid to vote for a third party. The whole reason that the two-party system is so well entrenched is because its so well entrenched. Its a viscous cycle, and the only way to break it is to vote for who you actually want, not just who is the lesser of two evils.
Ron Paul is getting my vote whether he wins the Republican nomination or not.
and this is the exact reason i don't vote. what happens when you vote for someone not on the ballot? nothing. nothing at all happens. voting for ron paul if he doesn't win the nomination (he won't) is the same thing as voting for jesus, or my dad, you get the picture.
But that's only so because everyone thinks like that. Like I said, its a vicious cycle, and the only way to break it is to fight it head on.
It isn't the same thing as voting for someone random, because I wouldn't be the only one writing him in, and really, he isn't that far behind, which is why he's still in the race. It's absurd that the media pays zero attention to him, because he's certainly not out of the race. Since this is pretty off-topic, we can continue this discussion via PM's if you'd like.
Also, I bet he WILL be on the ballot even if not for the repubs, since he's probably got the Libertarian nomination. That's beside the point though.
On March 02 2012 03:00 mastergriggy wrote: Most people don't vote. From what I hear the percentage gets lower and lower too. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that most people don't prescribe to either of the two candidates policies, and therefore don't think voting is worth it or don't feel compelled to vote in the first place.
And this will never change if people don't vote. In fact, it will only get worse.
Instead of not voting at all, just don't be afraid to vote for a third party. The whole reason that the two-party system is so well entrenched is because its so well entrenched. Its a viscous cycle, and the only way to break it is to vote for who you actually want, not just who is the lesser of two evils.
Ron Paul is getting my vote whether he wins the Republican nomination or not.
and this is the exact reason i don't vote. what happens when you vote for someone not on the ballot? nothing. nothing at all happens. voting for ron paul if he doesn't win the nomination (he won't) is the same thing as voting for jesus, or my dad, you get the picture.
It does if people like the OP actually get off their ass and do it. We've seen 3rd party candidates have some sucess before, but people are too fucking lazy nowadays.
People do have some power, but only against almost truly evil things (SOPA is a great example). But, for the most part, I have given up. Not only does the power belong to the exceedingly wealthy, but I just don't like my option. No one is real anymore (if they ever were). No candidate wants to help you or the country. They push an agenda prescribed to them by whomever is paying them.
On March 02 2012 08:03 Serthius wrote: If you don't vote, you don't get to moan about how your vote doesn't count.
This would be a valid argument IF there were any real difference between what the electable candidates will do once they are put into office. All you have to do is look at the Obameter to see an example of how candidates either blatantly lie to their supporters, or change their mind as soon as they step into the oval office.
So if my choice is between a dishonest Mr. X who says A, but does C as president, or a fickle Mr. Y who says B, but also does C as president, then I don't really have a choice. My vote doesn't count for anything substantial no matter who I vote for. It's like being able to choose what color handcuffs police get to use when they arrest you. It doesn't make a difference. You're still being tied up.
To the OP, if you don't already listen to Freedomain Radio, I think you'll really like it. Stefan Molyneux hits the nail on the head in this video.
The government is corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The corporations are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The candidates are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The voters are often stupid, and the same can apply to a good bit of the above. That is why I do not vote. I simply have lost hope in my system.
I feel like if they vote went to a majority and off of the electoral college method then you would see a greater turn out because then everyone's vote would matter.
Well I agree with all your points, one vote is obviously meaningless and lobbyists will always have there way. I vote just cause it doesn't require that much effort and it feels good to go through the official process.
On March 02 2012 09:08 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: The government is corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The corporations are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The candidates are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The voters are often stupid, and the same can apply to a good bit of the above. That is why I do not vote. I simply have lost hope in my system.
And yet the source of a lot of those problems are simply people not bothering to vote against them. It's called a cycle
You just sound uneducated and lazy to be honest, in other words the typical American non-voter. So what if your state is lopsided in federal elections? You do realize that there are only two parties which means that those two parties have lots of different viewpoints within them right? In most states it is your local and state government that affect you far more than the federal government does, yet you willingly choose to ignore those fields completely. I can tell you just don't want to invest a lot of time and effort into understanding and influencing the issues and would rather do nothing so you can bitch on the sideline how "nobody listens to you". You are basically everything that is wrong with modern democracy. The system has flaws, but you only have yourself to blame for that.
On March 02 2012 03:00 mastergriggy wrote: Most people don't vote. From what I hear the percentage gets lower and lower too. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that most people don't prescribe to either of the two candidates policies, and therefore don't think voting is worth it or don't feel compelled to vote in the first place.
And this will never change if people don't vote. In fact, it will only get worse.
Instead of not voting at all, just don't be afraid to vote for a third party. The whole reason that the two-party system is so well entrenched is because its so well entrenched. Its a viscous cycle, and the only way to break it is to vote for who you actually want, not just who is the lesser of two evils.
Ron Paul is getting my vote whether he wins the Republican nomination or not.
and this is the exact reason i don't vote. what happens when you vote for someone not on the ballot? nothing. nothing at all happens. voting for ron paul if he doesn't win the nomination (he won't) is the same thing as voting for jesus, or my dad, you get the picture.
But there's also a lot to be said about the personal value of voting. Sure, your candidate might not get elected. But he might get enough votes to go more into the national spotlight, so next time more people might be aware. And you might begin a domino effect where eventually, two or three elections down the road, he will win.
Just because someone might not be a "winner" in this election, doesn't mean that you're throwing your vote away.
I voted Libertarian last election, and I will probably do so again. i feel like we're honestly gaining a lot of steam, and that we have some really good ideas.
We probably won't win the presidency, but it hasn't always been democrats and republicans. The Whigs used to be around, and now they're gone, (giving rise to the republican party), etc. Change eventually does come around, you also have to think about how gradual change always is.
There are many more older people who are already well entrenched in their beliefs and ways, who don't WANT to see the legalization of weed, who don't want to see gays getting married, who want things to be like they were 20 years ago. And then there's the younger generation that seems to be more okay with all of these things, and less afraid of the future.
It's part of the condition of growing older, i suppose.
But i hardly feel like voting for a 3rd party is throwing away your vote.
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.
So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly...
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.
So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly...
It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly.
Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms.
On March 02 2012 09:17 Amlitzer wrote: You just sound uneducated and lazy to be honest, in other words the typical American non-voter. So what if your state is lopsided in federal elections? You do realize that there are only two parties which means that those two parties have lots of different viewpoints within them right? In most states it is your local and state government that affect you far more than the federal government does, yet you willingly choose to ignore those fields completely. I can tell you just don't want to invest a lot of time and effort into understanding and influencing the issues and would rather do nothing so you can bitch on the sideline how "nobody listens to you". You are basically everything that is wrong with modern democracy. The system has flaws, but you only have yourself to blame for that.
This is one of the more offensive posts yet, and misinformed.
OP clearly states, sentence one, national offices only. I have already said many times it is easy to see an individual impact at a local level.
I never mention 'nobody listening to me'. I state my feelings that regardless of who wins in an election, the government is run by a wealthy few.
Please be nice if you want to discuss, and keep your hot-headedness to a minimum.
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?
this is actually a very accurate representation of how i feel, too
Me as well. Reading about how electoral colleges work, it becomes clear(if i read it right) That america is a fail of a voting system to the average thinking person
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.
So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly...
It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly.
Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms.
Don't you have blank votes though? I know it's hard for people to justify doing that when it's basically not voting but if, say, 10-20% of the people took the time to go and vote for the fact that none of the options are any good then they would have to take notice.
The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so is a problem that has been considered by political scientists and psychologists for a long time. What it basically comes down to is cognitive biases, as many people in this thread demonstrate. Take a look at the following three articles if you're interested in an academic take on it:
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote: The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so
im gonna read the articles and see if they answer my question, but i want to know from you first. how is voting irrational?
edit: it did not answer my question... it just said that our singular vote can make no difference and therefore it is irrational to vote. but let's take this completely unlikely scenario and see what happens:
let's say that 1% of the people who would have voted decides that this article is correct, all on their own without consulting anyone, and says "well, it's irrational, i'm not voting."
let's say that by miracle chance, that 1% is made up entirely of republicans.
1% of ~150,000,000 is 1,500,000
and let's say, again by miracle chance, that these people are spread throughout the nation in various districts. this could WILDLY change the nature of an election. a landslide victory for a republican could turn into a landslide loss.
the argument you'll probably give me now is: "but that is irrelevant to you! your vote wouldn't have changed that, cause those people would have done that anyway!"
in which case i will say: "that was the excuse every one of those 1,500,000 people used. and because of them, their guy lost."
idk, it definitely seems to me like voting is important. even if my 1 vote doesn't "matter".
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote: The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so is a problem that has been considered by political scientists and psychologists for a long time. What it basically comes down to is cognitive biases, as many people in this thread demonstrate. Take a look at the following three articles if you're interested in an academic take on it:
On March 02 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
The irrationality is in undertaking an action where the benefits (in this case, infintestimally close to zero) is outweighed by the costs (in this case, usually minor but still greater than the benefits).
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.
So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly...
It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly.
Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms.
Don't you have blank votes though? I know it's hard for people to justify doing that when it's basically not voting but if, say, 10-20% of the people took the time to go and vote for the fact that none of the options are any good then they would have to take notice.
The question is: Who will take notice? In recent elections in Denmark, about 10% of the votes are declared illegitimate and it is not a topic at all in the media. People choosing the sofa, however, is getting far more attention. Last election, some candidates and parties chose to drive people to the election no matter what they voted for, just to keep the numbers up. Denmark and Sweden are almost identical in election-systems, participation and so on, so I do not think it will matter that much that people vote blank. The media does not care. It is just a bleb in the postelection-data!
On March 02 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
The irrationality is in undertaking an action where the benefits (in this case, infintestimally close to zero) is outweighed by the costs (in this case, usually minor but still greater than the benefits).
you may think that sounds smart, but it doesnt. when you vote realizing that its the cumulative effect of votes that sway the election, you are not acting irrational.
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.
So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly...
It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly.
Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms.
Don't you have blank votes though? I know it's hard for people to justify doing that when it's basically not voting but if, say, 10-20% of the people took the time to go and vote for the fact that none of the options are any good then they would have to take notice.
If by blank votes, you mean write-ins, then yes, we do have those.
The thing is, its not that only the Republican and Democratic candidates are on the ballot; there are plenty of third parties on the ballot. The problem is that no one thinks third parties stand a chance, and it's because of that belief that they don't stand a chance. No one votes for them, even if they have a candidate who perfectly represents them, because they would rather vote for the lesser of two evils, and at least keep a guy they absolutely don't want out of office, than vote for someone who in all likelyhood, never even got more than 10% of the vote.
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.
So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly...
It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly.
Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms.
Don't you have blank votes though? I know it's hard for people to justify doing that when it's basically not voting but if, say, 10-20% of the people took the time to go and vote for the fact that none of the options are any good then they would have to take notice.
The question is: Who will take notice? In recent elections in Denmark, about 10% of the votes are declared illegitimate and it is not a topic at all in the media. People choosing the sofa, however, is getting far more attention. Last election, some candidates and parties chose to drive people to the election no matter what they voted for, just to keep the numbers up. Denmark and Sweden are almost identical in election-systems, participation and so on, so I do not think it will matter that much that people vote blank. The media does not care. It is just a bleb in the postelection-data!
Perhaps it would not be that big of a deal but it would at least give a partial answer why so many people are not voting. The amount of blank votes also indicate how many people that feel that there is no party that suits them and can therefore be used by existing parties to increase their votes.
It bothers me that apathy is so pervasive here in the U.S.. If you don't think votes matter tell that to the Senator or Congressman/Congresswoman who have to pander to the retiree/tea party/generally older population to win elections. They get out and vote in their wheelchairs/canes and all and as long as they do they will continue to hold substantial influence in the way elections (at all levels) are decided and sculpt the general culture of the Senate. If you don't think receiving complaints and tons of negative calls about a stance on a certain issue gives a politician pause in considering which way to vote then you are mistaken. If your solution is to simply do nothing and not engage in the political process then that is your prerogative. But why do you think politicians are hesitant at touching issues like entitlement? Because elections have consequences. Yes, lobbying and money influencing politics is a huge problem, but when a substantial proportion of the population sits on the sidelines and does nothing then we will never get what we want if we don't make a stink about it and hold people accountable. This is aimed towards the middle of the country which is not extreme in either way, and more prone to apathy, you need to vote if you disagree with the way the both Houses of Congress conduct themselves. Obviously one single vote will not change an election, but millions of people believing their vote doesn't matter can effect an election. Just look at the primaries where there is a really low turnout, where are all the other Republicans, the youth vote for Ron Paul?, just a lot of people letting other people decide who they want to represent them sitting at home watching CSI.
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote: The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so is a problem that has been considered by political scientists and psychologists for a long time. What it basically comes down to is cognitive biases, as many people in this thread demonstrate. Take a look at the following three articles if you're interested in an academic take on it:
there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
Yes.
Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote: The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so is a problem that has been considered by political scientists and psychologists for a long time. What it basically comes down to is cognitive biases, as many people in this thread demonstrate. Take a look at the following three articles if you're interested in an academic take on it:
there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
Yes.
Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote: The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so is a problem that has been considered by political scientists and psychologists for a long time. What it basically comes down to is cognitive biases, as many people in this thread demonstrate. Take a look at the following three articles if you're interested in an academic take on it:
there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
Yes.
Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote: The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so is a problem that has been considered by political scientists and psychologists for a long time. What it basically comes down to is cognitive biases, as many people in this thread demonstrate. Take a look at the following three articles if you're interested in an academic take on it:
there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
Yes.
Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
.00001 = 0
Sorry, no.
it is probably better if he doesnt vote anyways. lol
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote: The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so is a problem that has been considered by political scientists and psychologists for a long time. What it basically comes down to is cognitive biases, as many people in this thread demonstrate. Take a look at the following three articles if you're interested in an academic take on it:
there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
Yes.
Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
.00001 = 0
100 000 x .00001 = 1 100 000 x 0 = 0 by your logic, 0 = 1
All I have to say to all the people giving reasons why they don't vote/the U.S. political system is awful, please continue abstaining from participating.
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote: The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so is a problem that has been considered by political scientists and psychologists for a long time. What it basically comes down to is cognitive biases, as many people in this thread demonstrate. Take a look at the following three articles if you're interested in an academic take on it:
there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
Yes.
Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
.00001 = 0
Times millions = >0 Just like one drop of water does not make an ocean or a handful of sand does not make a desert. Not every atom in the world is useful but that does not make it nothing, sorry.
On March 02 2012 10:31 Jerubaal wrote: All I have to say to all the people giving reasons why they don't vote/the U.S. political system is awful, please continue abstaining from participating.
Thank you.
Your society would be better if they did vote, as your politicians would need to be more universally appealing. Rick Santorums and Sarah Palins would never be viable without a small and fanatical voting base.
The fact is that ultimately your vote is worth the same as anyone elses. Yes your vote alone may not make a difference but who is to say you will be alone. There is that old saying about speaking up for others so they can speak up for you. Well if you don't excercise your right to vote you have no right to complain. It is a privilege to be able to excercise some form of control over your government. Even a minor one such as a single vote.
Sitting back and blaming those "passionate" enough to influence government is weak. Lobbying BTW is not restricted to big bad business. Community groups, patients advocates, environmental organisations are all lobbyists to some degree. We can all agree that money has too much power, but the only way to balance that is to get out there and do something about it. I love voting, even if the people who get elected are derps. People fought tooth and nail for your right to vote, an apathetic dismissal of the system does them no justice.
On March 02 2012 10:38 Probulous wrote: Wow, so many jaded individuals.
The fact is that ultimately your vote is worth the same as anyone elses. Yes your vote alone may not make a difference but who is to say you will be alone. There is that old saying about speaking up for others so they can speak up for you. Well if you don't excercise your right to vote you have no right to complain. It is a privilege to be able to excercise some form of control over your government. Even a minor one such as a single vote.
Sitting back and blaming those "passionate" enough to influence government is weak. Lobbying BTW is not restricted to big bad business. Community groups, patients advocates, environmental organisations are all lobbyists to some degree. We can all agree that money has too much power, but the only way to balance that is to get out there and do something about it. I love voting, even if the people who get elected are derps. People fought tooth and nail for your right to vote, an apathetic dismissal of the system does them no justice.
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote: The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so is a problem that has been considered by political scientists and psychologists for a long time. What it basically comes down to is cognitive biases, as many people in this thread demonstrate. Take a look at the following three articles if you're interested in an academic take on it:
there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
Yes.
Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
.00001 = 0
I'd take it you would support a monarchy/anarchy then, as you obviously don't value the right to vote.
That said, out of curiousity, if you could change the voting system, what would you change and why? How? Should government structure be changed? I ask these questions since I am legitimately interested in constitutional reform in the US. It's often talked about, but everyone seems afraid to lift a finger and make a push for it (for letigimate political reasons).
I intend to run for office in '14 (although not sure which seat at this time, I will probably hold off a federal run until at least '18), and would love to push this agenda. I know most here aren't registered to vote in the US, but what do you percieve to be flaws and why would you have them changed? And most importantly, which changes would be accepted by the public and which would you consider to be "untouchables"?
On March 02 2012 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:you may think that sounds smart, but it doesnt. when you vote realizing that its the cumulative effect of votes that sway the election, you are not acting irrational.
That would be the magical thinking fallacy. The fact that voting is the cumulative effect of votes doesn't change the fact that the probability of your vote making a difference is virtually null. Further, your vote or lack thereof does not affect whether other people will or won't vote.
When I use the term "rational", I'm using the term under the umbrella of rational choice theory.
On March 02 2012 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:you may think that sounds smart, but it doesnt. when you vote realizing that its the cumulative effect of votes that sway the election, you are not acting irrational.
On March 02 2012 10:16 Wfat wrote:Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
Try actually reading.
The problem isn't just that the benefit is close to zero. If that were the only case, then you would still vote because a tiny benefit is better than zero. However, there are also costs associated with voting, which outweigh the tiny benefits.
On March 02 2012 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:you may think that sounds smart, but it doesnt. when you vote realizing that its the cumulative effect of votes that sway the election, you are not acting irrational.
That would be the magical thinking fallacy. The fact that voting is the cumulative effect of votes doesn't change the fact that the probability of your vote making a difference is virtually null. Further, your vote or lack thereof does not affect whether other people will or won't vote.
When I use the term "rational", I'm using the term under the umbrella of rational choice theory.
On March 02 2012 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote:you may think that sounds smart, but it doesnt. when you vote realizing that its the cumulative effect of votes that sway the election, you are not acting irrational.
That would be the magical thinking fallacy. The fact that voting is the cumulative effect of votes doesn't change the fact that the probability of your vote making a difference is virtually null. Further, your vote or lack thereof does not affect whether other people will or won't vote.
When I use the term "rational", I'm using the term under the umbrella of rational choice theory.
You are looking at the "mathetmatical" problem wrong. Sure, when you look at the end result of a blowout election you say "my vote didn't make a difference in the election", nothing is technically wrong with that. But if that were true, and nobody voted the oppossite would be true, where one vote makes all the difference in the world, and therefore everyone should be voting. It's logical fallacy that is perpetuated when you look at the problem from only one angle.
The truth is that every vote DOES matter, and every vote DOES hold the same weight as any other vote.
On March 02 2012 10:16 Wfat wrote:Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
Try actually reading.
The problem isn't just that the benefit is close to zero. If that were the only case, then you would still vote because a tiny benefit is better than zero. However, there are also costs associated with voting, which outweigh the tiny benefits.
the costs of putting bush into office was much larger than the cost for me to vote for kerry. [insert random, unnecessary, big word here]
On March 02 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:please use smaller words, i am but a mere mortal.
Stop trolling. You claimed in another thread to be a lawyer. Surely you can understand the following formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting?
If you seriously hit your head and became stupid or something, then feel free to educate yourself by doing some googling and reading; I already gave a series of articles written in simple English for "mere mortals",.
On March 02 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:please use smaller words, i am but a mere mortal.
Stop trolling. You claimed in another thread to be a lawyer. Surely you can understand the following formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting?
If you seriously hit your head and became stupid or something, then feel free to educate yourself by doing some googling and reading; I already gave a series of articles written in simple English for "mere mortals",.
You can't just imagine formula's to be zero sum when they don't take into account all possible factors.
Also your formula sucks. If someoen has a 100% chance of winning, the reward for voting would be astronomical when that simply just isn't the case.
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?
this is actually a very accurate representation of how i feel, too
Why would the first post quote the whole OP? I never get why people do this. Obviously the first post is going to be directed towards the OP, there's nothing else for it to be directed towards. Unless, of course, it's off topic, but then you shouldn't be posting at all.
ANYWAY.... If you don't vote, that's your decision, but think of the people who CANNOT vote because of some rules their government has (I'm not sure where exactly, but I'm positive there are multiple countries that don't allow women to vote). You have the right, so you should practice it. If you think money is what matters, maybe you should run a campaign with enough logic and power to have yourself elected as an official, without using tons of money, of course, because we want to get rid of that practice.
On March 02 2012 10:16 Wfat wrote:Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
Try actually reading.
The problem isn't just that the benefit is close to zero. If that were the only case, then you would still vote because a tiny benefit is better than zero. However, there are also costs associated with voting, which outweigh the tiny benefits.
What cost of voting outweighs your opinion? Energy? Time? That's like saying when you shouldn't post in a thread with 100 pages because your post is so small and hard to find value in, and the energy of writing the post and the time it takes to write the post outweigh its usefulness. So, either you should stop posting, or start/continue voting.
On March 02 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:please use smaller words, i am but a mere mortal.
Stop trolling. You claimed in another thread to be a lawyer. Surely you can understand the following formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting?
If you seriously hit your head and became stupid or something, then feel free to educate yourself by doing some googling and reading; I already gave a series of articles written in simple English for "mere mortals",.
you missed the point. people who have valid points rarely rely on using big words to prove them. and, in your case, ineffectually as well considering i read the articles you cited for the words you used and have no idea why you think they apply. try making a point instead of using big words. as they taught us in law school: KISS (keep it simple stupid).
On March 02 2012 10:51 dAPhREAk wrote:the costs of putting bush into office was much larger than the cost for me to vote for kerry.
No, you're failing economics.
Affecting who will end up in office is considered a benefit of voting, because when you make the decision of whether to vote or not, stopping Bush from ending up in office is a reason why you would choose to vote. However, what you completely disregarded is the probability that you will affect that outcome, which is close to zero. So even if the personal benefit of having Kerry for President rather than Bush is sizable, the expected benefit of voting to you is very low.
On March 02 2012 10:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:no it's a fact that the combined votes of the population decide elections.
That doesn't affect the cost-benefit equation for you, which still ends up showing that your benefits are close to zero.
ok, well then i won't vote. furthermore, i will convince everyone i know not to vote. i will further convince them to convince everyone they know. this will continue until we reach enough people to sway an election.
the fact is, if i managed to convince even ten thousand people to not vote, that could make a huge difference in a presidential election.
the cost for me is gas and time. the benefit is knowing that i took part in the effort to get my candidate elected and didn't let my voice go unheard. even if my voice is just a whisper. have you ever heard an entire stadium whisper something? it gets pretty damn loud. now imagine 10,000 stadiums.
On March 02 2012 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:you missed the point. people who have valid points rarely rely on using big words to prove them. and, in your case, ineffectually as well considering i read the articles you cited for the words you used and have no idea why you think they apply. try making a point instead of using big words. as they taught us in law school: KISS (keep it simple stupid).
Using simple words also tends to be imprecise. There's a reason why certain language is used in academic research. As a lawyer, presumably well-versed in legal opinions and contracts, I'm sure you understand why.
If you really want a simple version for why voting is irrational, then try this: Your vote probably won't affect the election.
On March 02 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:please use smaller words, i am but a mere mortal.
Stop trolling. You claimed in another thread to be a lawyer. Surely you can understand the following formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting?
If you seriously hit your head and became stupid or something, then feel free to educate yourself by doing some googling and reading; I already gave a series of articles written in simple English for "mere mortals",.
And if everyone thought that way, you may as well not have a democracy at all. Might as well just be a monarchy and cut out the middle-man.
On March 02 2012 10:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:ok, well then i won't vote. furthermore, i will convince everyone i know not to vote. i will further convince them to convince everyone they know. this will continue until we reach enough people to sway an election.
Convincing other people not to vote =/= the decision to vote yourself.
On March 02 2012 10:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:the cost for me is gas and time. the benefit is knowing that i took part in the effort to get my candidate elected and didn't let my voice go unheard. even if my voice is just a whisper. have you ever heard an entire stadium whisper something? it gets pretty damn loud. now imagine 10,000 stadiums.
Again, that's a stupid fallacy. Try it in reverse: if 10,000 stadiums are whispering, will anyone notice if you don't whisper?
Remember, your decision not to vote does not affect other people's decisions.
On March 02 2012 10:59 Millitron wrote:And if everyone thought that way, you may as well not have a democracy at all. Might as well just be a monarchy and cut out the middle-man.
Same damn magical thinking fallacy again.
Again, your decision to vote or not does not affect other people's decisions.
If enough people don't vote and/or it's a close election, then the odds of you affecting the election go up to the point where it makes sense for you to vote again.
On March 02 2012 10:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:ok, well then i won't vote. furthermore, i will convince everyone i know not to vote. i will further convince them to convince everyone they know. this will continue until we reach enough people to sway an election.
Convincing other people not to vote =/= the decision to vote yourself.
the point is: if no one votes, the system doesn't exist. if only a tiny minority vote, the system doesn't work. if a majority votes, the system works. i am a minority, but am a piece of that majority.
Again, that's a stupid fallacy. Try it in reverse: if 10,000 stadiums are whispering, will anyone notice if you don't whisper?
On March 02 2012 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:you missed the point. people who have valid points rarely rely on using big words to prove them. and, in your case, ineffectually as well considering i read the articles you cited for the words you used and have no idea why you think they apply. try making a point instead of using big words. as they taught us in law school: KISS (keep it simple stupid).
Using simple words also tends to be imprecise. There's a reason why certain language is used in academic research. As a lawyer, presumably well-versed in legal opinions and contracts, I'm sure you understand why.
If you really want a simple version for why voting is irrational, then try this: Your vote probably won't affect the election.
You really don't understand much about lawyers, so you should probably refrain from lecturing about it.
On March 02 2012 10:56 TerlocSG wrote:What cost of voting outweighs your opinion? Energy? Time?
The costs of voting are primarily: (a) time spent on registration, (b) the costs of rearranging your work schedule, (c) the costs of getting to the polls, and (d) the costs of gathering enough information to make informed votes.
On March 02 2012 10:56 TerlocSG wrote:That's like saying when you shouldn't post in a thread with 100 pages because your post is so small and hard to find value in, and the energy of writing the post and the time it takes to write the post outweigh its usefulness.
No, it would be like saying that you shouldn't post in a thread if there is a tiny chance that anyone will read your post or respond to it. Since people regularly respond to my posts here, there's obviously value in posting.
By contrast, the odds of my vote mattering are far less than the odds of my post affecting the thread.
On March 02 2012 11:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:the point is: if no one votes, the system doesn't exist. if only a tiny minority vote, the system doesn't work. if a majority votes, the system works. i am a minority, but am a piece of that majority.
You don't get rational choice theory at all. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again.
The point is, that as long as hundreds of millions of other people vote, then it's not worth voting.
On March 02 2012 11:03 sc2superfan101 wrote: yes. someone will notice. you know who?
me.
That's cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that you won't affect anything.
On March 02 2012 10:59 Millitron wrote:And if everyone thought that way, you may as well not have a democracy at all. Might as well just be a monarchy and cut out the middle-man.
Same damn magical thinking fallacy again.
Again, your decision to vote or not does not affect other people's decisions.
If enough people don't vote and/or it's a close election, then the odds of you affecting the election go up to the point where it makes sense for you to vote again.
I didn't say it DID affect other people's decisions. If I vote, and they don't, well then I just picked the president. If I vote, and they do as well, then I did my part to help the guy I voted for get elected. Even if he loses, I at least did my part.
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain when the government sucks. You didn't care enough to try to do something about it when you had the chance, so the only person you have to blame is yourself.
On March 02 2012 11:05 BluePanther wrote:That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true.
The burden of proof is on you to show that it does, not the other way around.
I already did early, you just ignored me.
The truth is that every vote does matter because you cannot possibly know who will and will not vote on the day of an election.
The problem is far more complicated than you are proposing it to be, because it's double blind. Neither side of the vote knows who on the other side will and will not show up on the date in question.
On March 02 2012 11:08 dAPhREAk wrote:i dont have to prove my point, you have to disprove it. OBJECTION! lol
You fail logic forever.
The burden is always on the person trying to prove something exists. The default assumption here is that your vote doesn't affect other people. The burden is on you to prove that it does, if you want to insist that this is a reason to vote.
On March 02 2012 11:08 dAPhREAk wrote:i dont have to prove my point, you have to disprove it. OBJECTION! lol
You fail logic forever.
The burden is always on the person trying to prove something exists. The default assumption here is that your vote doesn't affect other people. The burden is on you to prove that it does, if you want to insist that this is a reason to vote.
i vote for a very simple reason, the ability to bitch about it. if someone is elected that you dont like, and you didnt vote, then you have no reason to bitch about them because you didnt do anything to try to prevent them from being elected. if youre too lazy to go and vote fro something, you shouldnt have the right to complain about the result. thats really the only reason i vote anymore.
On March 02 2012 11:10 BluePanther wrote:The truth is that every vote does matter because you cannot possibly know who will and will not vote on the day of an election.
You cannot know precisely, but you can estimate with enough confidence to know that the number will be sufficiently high that your vote is meaningless. Of course, if you have some reason to believe that the number will be shockingly low this time, then it makes more sense to vote.
On March 02 2012 11:10 BluePanther wrote:The problem is far more complicated than you are proposing it to be, because it's double blind. Neither side of the vote knows who on the other side will and will not show up on the date in question.
We have polls all the time to assess the likely number of voters, so that's false.
On March 02 2012 11:02 sunprince wrote: Again, your decision to vote or not does not affect other people's decisions.
On March 02 2012 11:08 sunprince wrote: You don't get rational choice theory at all. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again.
This does not work in the same theory. Either my action DOES affect other's actions, or it DOES NOT. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
On March 02 2012 11:11 dAPhREAk wrote:why is that the default assumption?
Stop trolling.
has your logic failed you?
edit: you also really should learn how to quote properly. it is hard as hell to follow your conversations because you dont quote the entire conversation.
On March 02 2012 11:08 sunprince wrote: You don't get rational choice theory at all. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again.
This does not work in the same theory. Either my action DOES affect other's actions, or it DOES NOT. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Try reading again.
I didn't say that your vote affects other's actions. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again, because it means your vote has a high enough probability of mattering, not because your vote would encourage people to vote or some bullshit like that.
Other people's actions affect your decision to vote. The other way around is not true.
On March 02 2012 11:17 dAPhREAk wrote:has your logic failed you?
No, I can explain how burden of proof works, but it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to waste my time.
If you're really so retarded that you don't understand why its necessary to prove that things exist, not disprove them, then feel free to use Google to look up burden of proof and Occam's razor.
On March 02 2012 10:16 Wfat wrote:Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
Try actually reading.
The problem isn't just that the benefit is close to zero. If that were the only case, then you would still vote because a tiny benefit is better than zero. However, there are also costs associated with voting, which outweigh the tiny benefits.
Great, you're personally attacking me because I don't agree with you. I read his blog posts. The costs associated with voting are non-existent and purely an intellectual wank. It takes 30 minutes to vote, and for me the process is enjoyable. Also I enjoy participating in how my country is governed and in general care for the society that I live in.
Your argument (and also the academics) now hinges on one point, your personal belief(s) and value in voting, which is clearly different to mine. Awesome! Voting is worthwhile.
Now think about:
On March 02 2012 11:06 sunprince wrote: ... The costs of voting are primarily: (a) time spent on registration, (b) the costs of rearranging your work schedule, (c) the costs of getting to the polls, and (d) the costs of gathering enough information to make informed votes. ...
Now I challenge you to think about the benefits of voting and weigh that up with those costs you listed. a) takes hardly any time in Australia, b) and c) are not issues because you can postal vote in Australia (and apparently you can in USA as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting#United_States), and d) well, you're quite clearly interested enough in politics (and I'd wager most adults are as well) to do this in your spare time.
On March 02 2012 11:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:the point is: if no one votes, the system doesn't exist. if only a tiny minority vote, the system doesn't work. if a majority votes, the system works. i am a minority, but am a piece of that majority.
You don't get rational choice theory at all. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again.
The point is, that as long as hundreds of millions of other people vote, then it's not worth voting.
if it's not worth anyones time to vote, then in a logical world: no one would vote. but then it would suddenly become logical to vote, so they would vote. but then it's not logical to vote, so they wouldn't. but then...
i think you can see where this is going.
That's cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that you won't affect anything.
see, you missed the point. my vote may not affect the outcome, but that is not what makes it worth it. what makes it worth it is the value of that vote to me. i value my vote very highly, therefore, it is worth it for me to vote.
On March 02 2012 11:17 dAPhREAk wrote:has your logic failed you?
No, I can explain how burden of proof works, but it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to waste my time.
If you're really so retarded that you don't understand why its necessary to prove that things exist, not disprove them, then feel free to use Google to look up burden of proof and Occam's razor.
you make assumptions and state them as truth, but refuse to answer my question about why you made the assumption. yeah, i am the retard....
I think that people who don't vote and then complain are just wrong.
Look at Lupe Fiasco. Writes 100 songs about how corrupt government is but doesn't get off his ass and vote to make his voice heard and try to change the political system.
I think that people nowadays have this false idea that people have no voice in the government. People do have a voice. For example, same sex marriage was banned in many states, but now that people have risen up, it's slowly changing. Same with SOPA and other bills of that nature.
Heck, I think that if enough people got off of their asses, we can protest NDAA and other horrible laws and get them changed for the better. Now, it may not always work (people protested the Iraq War at the start and we had been there for nine years after) but I think that there is no harm in not trying.
What is happening in this thread...it's like a religion debate on who has the burden of proof T.T
I vote because it is the lesser of two evils. I recognize the marginal impact my vote has on an election, but I still vote because it stil has that marginal impact. Also the vote signifies my belief that the current voting scheme (albeit not the best) is a legimate measure of election. Not voting does absolutely nothing. Thus the lesser of two evils.
On March 02 2012 11:02 sunprince wrote: Again, your decision to vote or not does not affect other people's decisions.
On March 02 2012 11:08 sunprince wrote: You don't get rational choice theory at all. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again.
This does not work in the same theory. Either my action DOES affect other's actions, or it DOES NOT. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Try reading again.
I didn't say that your vote affects other's actions. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again, because it means your vote has a high enough probability of mattering, not because your vote would encourage people to vote or some bullshit like that.
Other people's actions affect your decision to vote. The other way around is not true.
If other's actions affect my decision to vote, then how the hell does my decision on whether to vote not affect the others?
On March 02 2012 11:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:if it's not worth anyones time to vote, then in a logical world: no one would vote. but then it would suddenly become logical to vote, so they would vote. but then it's not logical to vote, so they wouldn't. but then...
i think you can see where this is going.
It's not a logical world. As this thread proves, most people are subject to cognitive biases and vote even though it's irrational.
On March 02 2012 11:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:see, you missed the point. my vote may not affect the outcome, but that is not what makes it worth it. what makes it worth it is the value of that vote to me. i value my vote very highly, therefore, it is worth it for me to vote.
If we broke down that value to some sort of number, say an estimated vaule of its monetary cost (e.g. how much would someone have to pay you not to vote), then we could easily plug it into the equation and prove that the costs still exceed the benefits for most people, including probably you.
On March 02 2012 10:42 BluePanther wrote: I vote because I care.
That said, out of curiousity, if you could change the voting system, what would you change and why? How? Should government structure be changed? I ask these questions since I am legitimately interested in constitutional reform in the US. It's often talked about, but everyone seems afraid to lift a finger and make a push for it (for letigimate political reasons).
I intend to run for office in '14 (although not sure which seat at this time, I will probably hold off a federal run until at least '18), and would love to push this agenda. I know most here aren't registered to vote in the US, but what do you percieve to be flaws and why would you have them changed? And most importantly, which changes would be accepted by the public and which would you consider to be "untouchables"?
What do you think about changing your voting system; watch these series of youtube videos
On March 02 2012 11:24 BluePanther wrote:If other's actions affect my decision to vote, then how the hell does my decision on whether to vote not affect the others?
Are they not people like me?
Not everyone acts rationally. As this thread proves, most people engage in cognitive biases where they think voting is worth it, even though it's been academically proven that it is not. Most people have a very poor grasp of probability, statistics, and economics.
On March 02 2012 11:24 BluePanther wrote:If other's actions affect my decision to vote, then how the hell does my decision on whether to vote not affect the others?
Are they not people like me?
Not everyone acts rationally. As this thread proves, most people engage in cognitive biases where they think voting is worth it, even though it's been academically proven that it is not. Most people have a very poor grasp of probability, statistics, and economics.
Actually those of you who are registered to vote, yet rarely/never do it, are the target of the presidential campaigns. Most election strategy hinges on the assumption that the party representative will get the majority of die-hard republican/democrat supporters. With this assumption in hand, the goal of most campaigns is to win the "swing voters" - those being the voters who do not often vote for one party, do not often vote, or never vote but are registered. Your voting demographic is where elections are won, of course your vote matters.
On March 02 2012 11:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:if it's not worth anyones time to vote, then in a logical world: no one would vote. but then it would suddenly become logical to vote, so they would vote. but then it's not logical to vote, so they wouldn't. but then...
i think you can see where this is going.
It's not a logical world. As this thread proves, most people are subject to cognitive biases and vote even though it's irrational.
i just gave you two reasons why it's not irrational. the first being that for every vote that isn't cast, the value of the singular vote goes up. therefore, as people stop voting, it becomes more and more valuable for them to vote. you're basically assuming some kind of balance where it's valuable to vote before but not after. im saying that it doesnt work like that because that is a circular argument, and that balance is impossible to achieve. if people don't vote because it's irrational, it suddenly becomes rational to vote, but then it's not rational because if they vote the value goes down, but then it's rational because they won't vote because of that... it keeps going and going and going. which is why i put the more important second point in there:
If we broke down that value to some sort of number, say an estimated vaule of its monetary cost (e.g. how much would someone have to pay you not to vote), then we could easily plug it into the equation and prove that the costs still exceed the benefits for most people, including probably you.
$1,000,000 could not get me to not vote. i would give up my life to protect my right to vote. i would send my children to war to protect their right to vote. almost nothing could be more valuable to me than my vote. so, this point is also incorrect. we are dealing with values that are higher than money.
On March 02 2012 11:01 sunprince wrote: Remember, your decision not to vote does not affect other people's decisions.
That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true.
If I go into a voting booth, spoil my ballot and leave without telling anyone else that I have done it or acting in any out of the ordinary way then what is different in the world, other than some ink on a page. The world may change down the line but the impact of my choice certainly won't be felt on election day while the ballot is still open. No other votes are changed, no decisions are in any way altered, no actions taken that day are taken any differently to the way they would have been had the ink been placed differently.
I'm missing the whole me voting doesn't affect anything equation, but in regards to the electoral college--it fits well with our representative focused government. A direct democracy would shift candidates away from everywhere but large population centers, and thus disenfranchise the entire Midwest and effectively make the residents of New York, California, and Texas decide the President. With our electoral college smaller populations have influence, still not as much as larger states, but still enough to warrant their desires being catered to. Imagine our Civil Rights Movement of the 60s put up for a direct vote.
I feel the biggest problem facing our government is the money in politics. Its easy for a movement to rise against SOPA, but there are thousands of lobbyist and it would be impossible for anyone with a full-time job to keep completely informed on every little thing they slip into legislation. The money they provide is what candidates use to get elected. Newt Gingrich getting a job with Freddie Mac as a 'historian' for X millions of dollars should be illegal and similar situations. Jack Abramoff's book talks all about buying Congressmen by offering them jobs after their tenure, and it is completely legal. Have a candidate go through some sort of nomination process and then they can tap into a pool to use for their campaigning. Equal money for all candidates. No donations allowed and a very low cap on private funds legally spendable.
Gerrymandering is another huge problem and I'm sure there are some good solution for fixing that. I know must districts are so gerrymandered that there are very few that are actually contested.
I feel term limits and longer terms would help too. The former, I believe, would reduce corruption and allow them to do what is best for the country as a pose to what will get them elected next election, and that latter would allow for more work to actually get done. House of Representative members spend most of their tenure campaigning. Cutting down Congress's vacation time would be a good thing too in that regard.
Finally, I would rather have a bunch of below average people voting than a few educated people. The fact being your representative (senator, president) will hopefully be somewhat educated.
Edit: Also, election days should be Federal holidays and there are plenty of other ways to make voting more accessible.
Here is the problem i feel.. Does our vote really matter? How would we even know if it was so close or not... There is a documentary called ... Hacking Democracy watch that and let me know if u feel so American after that
The US isn't a true democracy by the most literal definition--if it were, everyone would be spending more time voting on things than working. That in mind, when the constitution was being drafted, those present did not have enough faith in the general population to make good decisions on candidates, and so we have our electoral system instead of a popular vote as well as several other changes to our translation of democracy. What they didn't think of, was to have a lack of faith in politicians, as well.
Time and time again the winner of a popular vote loses the election because he's not favored by the current states' administrations. It really has turned into a frustrating system. Both the voting And political party systems, that is.
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
I'm glad you've become disillusioned. Welcome to the club. I'm not even registered to vote. I just don't care enough. Sure, some shit actually gets done at a municipal level, but meh the further up the level of politics goes, the more full of bullshit and garbage it is. I'd rather not stress out about it and deceive myself I'm significant in a system run by the powerful and influential. I have more important things to worry about anyways.
On March 02 2012 11:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:if it's not worth anyones time to vote, then in a logical world: no one would vote. but then it would suddenly become logical to vote, so they would vote. but then it's not logical to vote, so they wouldn't. but then...
i think you can see where this is going.
It's not a logical world. As this thread proves, most people are subject to cognitive biases and vote even though it's irrational.
$1,000,000 could not get me to not vote. i would give up my life to protect my right to vote. i would send my children to war to protect their right to vote. almost nothing could be more valuable to me than my vote. so, this point is also incorrect. we are dealing with values that are higher than money.
On March 02 2012 11:01 sunprince wrote: Remember, your decision not to vote does not affect other people's decisions.
That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true.
If I go into a voting booth, spoil my ballot and leave without telling anyone else that I have done it or acting in any out of the ordinary way then what is different in the world, other than some ink on a page. The world may change down the line but the impact of my choice certainly won't be felt on election day while the ballot is still open. No other votes are changed, no decisions are in any way altered, no actions taken that day are taken any differently to the way they would have been had the ink been placed differently.
one less reason for politicians to focus on you in the future. if one less republican votes in 123 county then its one less reason for republicans to focus on that county in the future (focus meaning campaigning, giving that county more benefits, etc.). same for democrats and other parties. political parties make decisions based on numbers. thats why repbulicans could give a shit about san francisco county, and democrats could give a shit about kern county.
On March 02 2012 11:01 sunprince wrote: Remember, your decision not to vote does not affect other people's decisions.
That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true.
If I go into a voting booth, spoil my ballot and leave without telling anyone else that I have done it or acting in any out of the ordinary way then what is different in the world, other than some ink on a page. The world may change down the line but the impact of my choice certainly won't be felt on election day while the ballot is still open. No other votes are changed, no decisions are in any way altered, no actions taken that day are taken any differently to the way they would have been had the ink been placed differently.
You don't know that. You have no way of knowing before the election which way it will turn out, or how close it will be.
If there was some way to know, why even have the elections? Why not just use whatever that method was?
As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, there HAVE been elections at a national level that were decided by individual votes. You have no way of knowing before the election whether or not it will happen again.
On March 02 2012 11:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:if it's not worth anyones time to vote, then in a logical world: no one would vote. but then it would suddenly become logical to vote, so they would vote. but then it's not logical to vote, so they wouldn't. but then...
i think you can see where this is going.
It's not a logical world. As this thread proves, most people are subject to cognitive biases and vote even though it's irrational.
$1,000,000 could not get me to not vote. i would give up my life to protect my right to vote. i would send my children to war to protect their right to vote. almost nothing could be more valuable to me than my vote. so, this point is also incorrect. we are dealing with values that are higher than money.
Damn d00d. I think that is silly.
it's only silly if you don't have faith that doing something right is more important than seeing the right result. i believe that trying to change the things i want changed is extremely important. therefore, my vote, while negligible when looked at from one point of view, is of great importance when looked at from my point of view.
look at it this way: let's say you are with your mother, walking down the street. a group of ten million men come up and say they're gonna rape and murder her. you know that they are going to do it. are you just gonna sit around and watch it happen just because you can't stop it? i may not blame you if you do, but i will sure as the sun rises not! i will go down kicking and screaming and fighting as hard as i can, whether it makes one bit of difference or not. because the real difference it will make is with me.
On March 02 2012 11:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:if it's not worth anyones time to vote, then in a logical world: no one would vote. but then it would suddenly become logical to vote, so they would vote. but then it's not logical to vote, so they wouldn't. but then...
i think you can see where this is going.
It's not a logical world. As this thread proves, most people are subject to cognitive biases and vote even though it's irrational.
$1,000,000 could not get me to not vote. i would give up my life to protect my right to vote. i would send my children to war to protect their right to vote. almost nothing could be more valuable to me than my vote. so, this point is also incorrect. we are dealing with values that are higher than money.
Damn d00d. I think that is silly.
it's only silly if you don't have faith that doing something right is more important than seeing the right result. i believe that trying to change the things i want changed is extremely important. therefore, my vote, while negligible when looked at from one point of view, is of great importance when looked at from my point of view.
look at it this way: let's say you are with your mother, walking down the street. a group of ten million men come up and say they're gonna rape and murder her. you know that they are going to do it. are you just gonna sit around and watch it happen just because you can't stop it? i may not blame you if you do, but i will sure as the sun rises not! i will go down kicking and screaming and fighting as hard as i can, whether it makes one bit of difference or not. because the real difference it will make is with me.
On March 02 2012 11:01 sunprince wrote: Remember, your decision not to vote does not affect other people's decisions.
That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true.
If I go into a voting booth, spoil my ballot and leave without telling anyone else that I have done it or acting in any out of the ordinary way then what is different in the world, other than some ink on a page. The world may change down the line but the impact of my choice certainly won't be felt on election day while the ballot is still open. No other votes are changed, no decisions are in any way altered, no actions taken that day are taken any differently to the way they would have been had the ink been placed differently.
You don't know that. You have no way of knowing before the election which way it will turn out, or how close it will be.
If there was some way to know, why even have the elections? Why not just use whatever that method was?
As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, there HAVE been elections at a national level that were decided by individual votes. You have no way of knowing before the election whether or not it will happen again.
Read my post again. I was saying that no decisions regarding the votes of other people will be changed as a result of me spoiling my ballot as opposed to voting for someone but doing everything else the same. Regarding how close it will be, while there is always the possibility that the entire presidential election may rest on the vote of a single individual the guy would probably be better off just using the money he got from winning the lottery a dozen times over and lobbing whoever won the election.
and that is 100% your right to feel that way. but just keep in mind that one of the reasons you have that right, or any right, is because a great many people don't feel that way. if everyone felt that their vote was worthless, we wouldn't have any rights at all, except for what we're given.
On March 02 2012 10:42 BluePanther wrote: I vote because I care.
That said, out of curiousity, if you could change the voting system, what would you change and why? How? Should government structure be changed? I ask these questions since I am legitimately interested in constitutional reform in the US. It's often talked about, but everyone seems afraid to lift a finger and make a push for it (for letigimate political reasons).
I intend to run for office in '14 (although not sure which seat at this time, I will probably hold off a federal run until at least '18), and would love to push this agenda. I know most here aren't registered to vote in the US, but what do you percieve to be flaws and why would you have them changed? And most importantly, which changes would be accepted by the public and which would you consider to be "untouchables"?
On March 02 2012 10:59 Millitron wrote:And if everyone thought that way, you may as well not have a democracy at all. Might as well just be a monarchy and cut out the middle-man.
Same damn magical thinking fallacy again.
Again, your decision to vote or not does not affect other people's decisions.
If enough people don't vote and/or it's a close election, then the odds of you affecting the election go up to the point where it makes sense for you to vote again.
I read the articles you provided. It's magical thinking if you believe your actions influence other people's actions, I agree. But he's misapplying that truism in this case. It's magical thinking to say if I don't vote therefore nobody else will vote, but it's not magical thinking to say if nobody votes democracy fails, there is some truth to this. If we have a society where we choose whether or not to vote, then do what you want. Under those conditions if you believe your vote makes a difference I have a bridge to sell you. It might make a difference if everyone was mandated to vote, however, then people like Sarah Palin (god help her) would never be elected. Your vote still wouldn't make a difference, but it would be part of an outcome that would be a better reflection of the will of the people.
On March 02 2012 11:22 Housemd wrote: Heck, I think that if enough people got off of their asses, we can protest NDAA and other horrible laws and get them changed for the better. Now, it may not always work (people protested the Iraq War at the start and we had been there for nine years after) but I think that there is no harm in not trying.
dont blame you guys for not voting down there, the advent of the internet, youtube, socail media has allowed the public to see the corruption that government has been trying to keep hidden. I mean when you are more or less presented with only 2 options by the media and they both push the same terrible legislation (patriot act, NDAA, homeland drones) what does it matter? Either way both parties are turning the US into a police state and the only small difference is frivilous stuff like allowing gay marriage.
On a note about the NDAA, and something you will never see on mainstream media is that Virginia passed legislation that more or less ignores the NDAA on Virginia soil. Other states are in plans to do the same thing, but youll never hear that on the mainstream media because they are under control of those who want the NDAA in place.
Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
On March 02 2012 11:08 dAPhREAk wrote:i dont have to prove my point, you have to disprove it. OBJECTION! lol
You fail logic forever.
The burden is always on the person trying to prove something exists. The default assumption here is that your vote doesn't affect other people. The burden is on you to prove that it does, if you want to insist that this is a reason to vote.
why is that the default assumption?
Because our discussion is operating in conditions where you're trying to insist voting is vitally important.
You don't get rational choice theory at all. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again.
So you're saying, my choice to vote actually does influence others' choice to vote by altering the equation and adjusting the chance that their vote is meaningful? I'm glad you could clarify that for me, makes it easier to refute your earlier statements that this is not so.
On March 02 2012 11:01 sunprince wrote: Remember, your decision not to vote does not affect other people's decisions.
That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true.
If I go into a voting booth, spoil my ballot and leave without telling anyone else that I have done it or acting in any out of the ordinary way then what is different in the world, other than some ink on a page. The world may change down the line but the impact of my choice certainly won't be felt on election day while the ballot is still open. No other votes are changed, no decisions are in any way altered, no actions taken that day are taken any differently to the way they would have been had the ink been placed differently.
You don't know that. You have no way of knowing before the election which way it will turn out, or how close it will be.
If there was some way to know, why even have the elections? Why not just use whatever that method was?
As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, there HAVE been elections at a national level that were decided by individual votes. You have no way of knowing before the election whether or not it will happen again.
Read my post again. I was saying that no decisions regarding the votes of other people will be changed as a result of me spoiling my ballot as opposed to voting for someone but doing everything else the same. Regarding how close it will be, while there is always the possibility that the entire presidential election may rest on the vote of a single individual the guy would probably be better off just using the money he got from winning the lottery a dozen times over and lobbing whoever won the election.
It doesn't matter that no one else's decisions are changed. Voting is practically free, so any argument about the costs of voting is futile. I guess the gas to get to the polling place costs money, but if you can't afford that little bit of gas, you have bigger things to be worrying about than whether or not voting is worth it. Further, you can request an absentee ballot, which is absolutely free.
If voting is worth so little to you, that you won't do it even if it is completely free, then you must also not value the right to vote. By extension, you must not value democracy, because without the right to vote, you can't have a democracy.
On March 02 2012 11:36 Sofestafont wrote: Gerrymandering is another huge problem and I'm sure there are some good solution for fixing that. I know must districts are so gerrymandered that there are very few that are actually contested.
Gerrymandering is a real problem. It is the primary reason I did not choose to run in the 2012 elections and have had to postpone my run.
Although it does have some positives. Two of my classmates decided to run after our new changes as they saw an opportunity to unseat incumbents they didn't like. It creates some turnover in government when the lines are redrawn. It's this same reason I nearly ran for another seat (but passed on due to commitment possibility).
On March 02 2012 11:25 dAPhREAk wrote: people who vote decide who gets into office. thats why we vote. people who dont vote, dont matter with respect to a democracy.
This is 100% wrong. Read one of my previous posts if you want to learn why.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
On March 02 2012 11:25 dAPhREAk wrote: people who vote decide who gets into office. thats why we vote. people who dont vote, dont matter with respect to a democracy.
This is 100% wrong. Read one of my previous posts if you want to learn why.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
You only have 2 parties and they're owned by the same coorporations, so they don't need to rig the elections to make sure they stay in power
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
You only have 2 parties and they're owned by the same coorporations, so they don't need to rig the elections to make sure they stay in power
On March 02 2012 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:i just gave you two reasons why it's not irrational. the first being that for every vote that isn't cast, the value of the singular vote goes up. therefore, as people stop voting, it becomes more and more valuable for them to vote.
Yes, but in the United States (which is the context of the argument), the value of an individual vote will not go up to the point that it matters, at least not in the near future.
Obviously if you live in a town where only twenty people vote, you should definitely vote in the mayoral election, but that's not what we're talking about here.
On March 02 2012 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:you're basically assuming some kind of balance where it's valuable to vote before but not after. im saying that it doesnt work like that because that is a circular argument, and that balance is impossible to achieve. if people don't vote because it's irrational, it suddenly becomes rational to vote, but then it's not rational because if they vote the value goes down, but then it's rational because they won't vote because of that... it keeps going and going and going. which is why i put the more important second point in there:
You keep assuming that people will stop voting because it's irrational. I've already explained that most people vote despite it's irrationality, and that won't change simply because a few enlightened individuals choose not to.
On March 02 2012 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:$1,000,000 could not get me to not vote. i would give up my life to protect my right to vote. i would send my children to war to protect their right to vote. almost nothing could be more valuable to me than my vote. so, this point is also incorrect. we are dealing with values that are higher than money.
Even assuming that you are honest, your views do not extend to everyone else. It's not that expensive to buy votes, let alone simply paying people to be lazy. We're also not talking about giving up your right to vote permanently or to become a slave; we're talking about how much it would cost for you to skip voting once. Would you vote even though skipping work that day was guaranteed to cost you your job? How much is the net gain to be had if you were to affect the vote?
There will always be a few people who value the act of voting once more than life itself. That's great for them, but the point being made is that most people vote even though it costs them something to do so and gives them very little benefit.
This thread is depressing. There are kids who died in Vietnam who couldn't vote. Enough people spoke up and took action to make the voting age 18, not 21.Women couldn't vote for the first 130 or so years of the United States' existence. They didn't sit around with bullshit excuses about "how their vote would never matter." They took action and faced social persecution so future generations could vote. If you are an American citizen that is anything than a land-owning adult white male, chances are people suffered for your right to vote, and you piss that suffering away because you're too goddamn lazy to go put a fucking slip in a box. "My vote doesn't matter, I read something on the internet that says it." What a waste. If the country is fucked up, it is because too many people are too lazy to do anything about it politically, voting or otherwise. This is why extreme positions in this country are so over-represented; moderate voters are too damn lazy and unmotivated to do anything about it. It is hard to get fired up and passionate about comprise, moderation and understanding, but that is what good government is.
If you don't vote, fine. But don't come here and tell me voting is stupid. It only makes you look like a basement-dweller that is too lazy to take any action to change the world they live in.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
You only have 2 parties and they're owned by the same coorporations, so they don't need to rig the elections to make sure they stay in power
I don't mean to be insulting, but that really is a stupid thing to say. You don't know that much about our system yet make such ridiculous claims. That's not how it works at all.
I'm turning 19 very soon, and plan on voting. Although there are realistically few personal benefits to voting, I feel it is my civic duty to do so, and so I shall.
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?
Answering your question with one of my own.
Just out of curiosity, to all of you who don't vote, do you just let all of the corruption you believe to be in the US government just slide? Do you guys just put politics in the back of your mind or are you politically active in another way? Because I can't believe it when people who don't vote believe that they can't do anything else politically and just give up. Sure, you might not want to vote, but that doesn't mean you can't be politically active. I mean, if you're so disgusted with the system, then why don't you try to change it? And yes, it is possible. In the words of Lincoln, the government is one
of the people, by the people, for the people
The government can be changed by the people since it's purpose is to serve the people. So for all of you who complain about the uselessness of voting, I really hope you're trying to correct the system and not just walk away from what you feel undoubtedly is injustice. Because that would be wrong, very wrong.
Attributed to Edmund Burke:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Definitely from Edmund Burke:
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
Democracy isn't just about voting, it's about the power of the people.
On March 02 2012 11:56 red_ wrote:So you're saying, my choice to vote actually does influence others' choice to vote by altering the equation and adjusting the chance that their vote is meaningful? I'm glad you could clarify that for me, makes it easier to refute your earlier statements that this is not so.
Your choice to vote does not alter their equation by any meaningful amount.
If everyone decided not to vote, in the magical world that keeps being proposed by people in this thread, then obviously the equation would change.
In the real world, in the United States, that's not going to happen, and there's hundreds of millions of votes, so no, your choice to vote does not meaningfully affect other people.
On March 02 2012 03:00 mastergriggy wrote: Most people don't vote. From what I hear the percentage gets lower and lower too. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that most people don't prescribe to either of the two candidates policies, and therefore don't think voting is worth it or don't feel compelled to vote in the first place.
That's untrue. More than half of eligible voters do so for every presidential election with only one exception in the last 50 years (49.1%). It is closer to 1/3 of voters for the half of votes that don't include a presidential candidate. Voter turnout in federal elections has climbed for every election since 1996 for both presidential and non-presidential. It is true that the electoral system is bullshit and we have the technology to use popular vote in major federal elections, though.
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.
There is a connection. Your statement does not make the "if everyone did this" argument invalid because votes come from ideas that are shared between people and ideas have influence. You're sharing ideas now like any person would, those ideas can affect other people's decision to vote.
I'm not saying anyone here is going to start some huge voting/not-voting movement by random posts in an internet thread. Rather these are old ideas that have been battling for a long time and if you're going to publicly take the position of not voting you have realize you might be responsible for other people saying "yeah he's right why am I voting anyway?", and if enough folks in your camp happen to convince enough people there'd be consequences, and you'd be a part of it. That is where the "if everyone thought..." argument comes from.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
You only have 2 parties and they're owned by the same coorporations, so they don't need to rig the elections to make sure they stay in power
what corporations are these?
In the US? Primarily Hollywood, the music industry, and oil companies. Those three basically dwarf everything else when it comes to campaign contributions and lobbying funds.
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
It's really funny that this correlates so much with my thought process on people with authority. I'm a criminal justice major in school, and most of my teachers at the police academy for my county (in South Florida) that is attached to my school are the chiefs, and or 2nd or 3rd in charge in their respective city's police departments. I recall specifically that not one, not two, not three, but four of my six criminal justice professors so far have emphasized their fanship of the Brazilian voting system, and why forcing people into voting until _x_ age is beneficial to express the voice of the people since it is mandatory. When I did my own research on the matter, after being told its benefits, that the people are educated voters to eliminate redundancy, and that the people who don't vote are the idiotic ones and therefore lose their rights, I found it to be far on the contrary.
I made this point for two reasons: 1) I agree with OP that people in authorative positions abuse them at any level of government or power in society. 2) People of any social power, whether it be celebrities or Mitt Romney, are blind narcissists who strictly live to revoke others of rights they already have, regardless of motive.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
You only have 2 parties and they're owned by the same coorporations, so they don't need to rig the elections to make sure they stay in power
what corporations are these?
In the US? Primarily Hollywood, the music industry, and oil companies. Those three basically dwarf everything else when it comes to campaign contributions and lobbying funds.
as long as we are talking conspiracy theories, you left out the banks, the pharmaceutical companies and the weapon manufacturers who also have extensive lobbying efforts.
On March 02 2012 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:i just gave you two reasons why it's not irrational. the first being that for every vote that isn't cast, the value of the singular vote goes up. therefore, as people stop voting, it becomes more and more valuable for them to vote.
Yes, but in the United States (which is the context of the argument), the value of an individual vote will not go up to the point that it matters, at least not in the near future.
Obviously if you live in a town where only twenty people vote, you should definitely vote in the mayoral election, but that's not what we're talking about here.
On March 02 2012 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:you're basically assuming some kind of balance where it's valuable to vote before but not after. im saying that it doesnt work like that because that is a circular argument, and that balance is impossible to achieve. if people don't vote because it's irrational, it suddenly becomes rational to vote, but then it's not rational because if they vote the value goes down, but then it's rational because they won't vote because of that... it keeps going and going and going. which is why i put the more important second point in there:
You keep assuming that people will stop voting because it's irrational. I've already explained that most people vote despite it's irrationality, and that won't change simply because a few enlightened individuals choose not to.
On March 02 2012 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:$1,000,000 could not get me to not vote. i would give up my life to protect my right to vote. i would send my children to war to protect their right to vote. almost nothing could be more valuable to me than my vote. so, this point is also incorrect. we are dealing with values that are higher than money.
Even assuming that you are honest, your views do not extend to everyone else. It's not that expensive to buy votes, let alone simply paying people to be lazy. We're also not talking about giving up your right to vote permanently or to become a slave; we're talking about how much it would cost for you to skip voting once. Would you vote even though skipping work that day was guaranteed to cost you your job? How much is the net gain to be had if you were to affect the vote?
There will always be a few people who value the act of voting once more than life itself. That's great for them, but the point being made is that most people vote even though it costs them something to do so and gives them very little benefit.
I don't mean to be rude, but you are wrong. I'm not going to type up some large explanation since you clearly aren't getting where I'm coming from, but you're very, very wrong. You're attempting to mathematicize emotions, logic, and feelings into a formula. If this were possible, we'd have had AI years ago.
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.
There is a connection. Your statement does not make the "if everyone did this" argument invalid because votes come from ideas that are shared between people and ideas have influence. You're sharing ideas now like any person would, those ideas can affect other people's decision to vote.
I'm not saying anyone here is going to start some huge voting/not-voting movement by random posts in an internet thread. Rather these are old ideas that have been battling for a long time and if you're going to publicly take the position of not voting you have realize you might be responsible for other people saying "yeah he's right why am I voting anyway?", and if enough folks in your camp happen to convince enough people there'd be consequences. That is where the "if everyone thought..." argument comes from.
Precisely.
It's incredibly common for people to share their philosophies with others (e.g. about why they don't vote), regardless of their socioeconomic status. This thread is proof of that, but you can find the same thing from co-workers, real-life friends, family, and so forth.
You keep assuming that people will stop voting because it's irrational. I've already explained that most people vote despite it's irrationality, and that won't change simply because a few enlightened individuals choose not to.
i find it to be extremely ironic that those "enlightened individuals" would, if they lived in a society by themselves, not get anything done at all because they would spend their entire time trying to figure out a completely circular argument. i find it to be extremely ironic that the "logical" world would have a problem of "if i do it, it's not worth it, but if i don't, it is worth it, so i should do it, but then..." while the "irrational" world would just say "whatever" and vote and get something done. tbh, the "enlightened" individuals don't sound all the rational to me.
Even assuming that you are honest, your views do not extend to everyone else.
have the government declare that they don't have the right to vote and you'll find out just how much people do care.
We're also not talking about giving up your right to vote permanently or to become a slave; we're talking about how much it would cost for you to skip voting once.
better men than me have died for me to have the right to that one vote. their lives are more important to me than money. and i would argue that not voting, for whatever reason, is a form of slavery. you are relying on others to make your decisions for you if you don't vote. if you vote, you may not get your way, but you at least tried.
but the point being made is that most people vote even though it costs them something to do so and gives them very little benefit.
it costs them very little and it gives them the benefit of knowing that they took part in running their country. it also gives them "bragging" rights: "don't blame me, i voted for (X)!"
On March 02 2012 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:i just gave you two reasons why it's not irrational. the first being that for every vote that isn't cast, the value of the singular vote goes up. therefore, as people stop voting, it becomes more and more valuable for them to vote.
Yes, but in the United States (which is the context of the argument), the value of an individual vote will not go up to the point that it matters, at least not in the near future.
Obviously if you live in a town where only twenty people vote, you should definitely vote in the mayoral election, but that's not what we're talking about here.
On March 02 2012 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:you're basically assuming some kind of balance where it's valuable to vote before but not after. im saying that it doesnt work like that because that is a circular argument, and that balance is impossible to achieve. if people don't vote because it's irrational, it suddenly becomes rational to vote, but then it's not rational because if they vote the value goes down, but then it's rational because they won't vote because of that... it keeps going and going and going. which is why i put the more important second point in there:
You keep assuming that people will stop voting because it's irrational. I've already explained that most people vote despite it's irrationality, and that won't change simply because a few enlightened individuals choose not to.
On March 02 2012 11:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:$1,000,000 could not get me to not vote. i would give up my life to protect my right to vote. i would send my children to war to protect their right to vote. almost nothing could be more valuable to me than my vote. so, this point is also incorrect. we are dealing with values that are higher than money.
Even assuming that you are honest, your views do not extend to everyone else. It's not that expensive to buy votes, let alone simply paying people to be lazy. We're also not talking about giving up your right to vote permanently or to become a slave; we're talking about how much it would cost for you to skip voting once. Would you vote even though skipping work that day was guaranteed to cost you your job? How much is the net gain to be had if you were to affect the vote?
There will always be a few people who value the act of voting once more than life itself. That's great for them, but the point being made is that most people vote even though it costs them something to do so and gives them very little benefit.
Absentee ballots are a great thing. You request one, fill it out at home, and mail it in. You don't need to miss work to do it.
Even if you do absolutely have to vote in person, if you can't simply skip your lunch break and vote then, or discuss it with your boss to get enough time to go vote without losing your job, one of two things is true:
1) You're a bad worker who has screwed up so many times that you have no leeway on whether they can keep their job or not, in which case even if you don't vote, you almost certainly will screw up and lose your job some other way.
2) Its a terrible job, and losing it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
On March 02 2012 12:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: it costs them very little and it gives them the benefit of knowing that they took part in running their country. it also gives them "bragging" rights: "don't blame me, i voted for (X)!"
You guys espouse voting so fiercely, yet it's posts like these that make me wonder if any of you fundamentally understand democracy at all. You don't run your country by voting, nor are you a good citizen because you vote once every four years. Also, voting isn't about assuaging yourself of guilt should the government be poor, and as far as I'm concerned it isn't about bragging.
On March 02 2012 03:00 mtwow789 wrote: If you are dissatisfied by politicians, voice your opinion. If all of the so called “middle class” votes, then politician will have to do something that makes middle class happy. Because if they don’t, they won’t get elected. If people like you don’t vote, why would politicians spend time and money to you? Every vote counts and if you neglect to vote, you are forfeiting your life to hands of others.
thats how its supposed to work but in reality they only do what the people who pay for their election campaigns want them to do, in america the congress may as well be just a bunch of dollar bills sitting around in a room, i feel like more would get done that way
There's no such thing as a perfect democratic system.
That being said I totally understand the frustration you're feeling. In my own experience I have felt much the same way for a long time.
What keeps me going is principle mainly, but also the knowledge that if everyone I knew who felt frustration also with the electoral process basically abstained then all we're left is with the crazies who keep on voting in people I don't want to see in office.
If all of the smart people abstain because they see the flaws in the system, then there's absolutely no way to keep the crazies out of office. The system isn't perfect but people like me continuing to vote in my opinion keeps it away from a march darker alternative.
On March 02 2012 12:09 BluePanther wrote:I'm not going to type up some large explanation since you clearly aren't getting where I'm coming from, but you're very, very wrong.
In other words, you don't actually have a logical explanation, because you're arguing from your emotions.
I do get where you're coming from, and what it comes down to is that what I'm saying "feels wrong" to you. Again, I'd like to remind you that the human mind is inherently poor at conceptualizing probability, statistics, and economics; that's why we've developed those academic fields to model them properly.
On March 02 2012 12:09 BluePanther wrote:You're attempting to mathematicize emotions, logic, and feelings into a formula.
It's called cost-benefit analysis. It's a key principle of economics, and government experts use it constantly when considering policy options.
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.
There is a connection. Your statement does not make the "if everyone did this" argument invalid because votes come from ideas that are shared between people and ideas have influence. You're sharing ideas now like any person would, those ideas can affect other people's decision to vote.
I'm not saying anyone here is going to start some huge voting/not-voting movement by random posts in an internet thread. Rather these are old ideas that have been battling for a long time and if you're going to publicly take the position of not voting you have realize you might be responsible for other people saying "yeah he's right why am I voting anyway?", and if enough folks in your camp happen to convince enough people there'd be consequences, and you'd be a part of it. That is where the "if everyone thought..." argument comes from.
So if you boil down the argument for 'if everyone thought that way'
It basically comes down to: 'You shouldn't not vote, or at least shouldn't tell people your choosing to not vote, because they may draw conclusions that may have a negative consequence'
For a country so obsessed with fighting for your own rights, and wanting the least interference in your own lives, it seems rather silly of an argument. What people choose to do with the knowledge of how little each individual vote matters statistically is their own damn problem.
I live in a country where voting is compulsory (terrible system btw, makes me intentionally null vote most elections), and even I know what conclusions other people choose to draw from it are not my responsibility. It's not my obligation to make people fully aware of the consequences of their choosing to vote or not, nor is it my obligation to vote just so other people don't make silly decisions (though it is my obligation to vote from a purely legal perspective).
On March 02 2012 02:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote: 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.
Its almost like.. people who are inteligent enough to become big business moguls are also inteligent enough to run the country! wow what a revelation!
We should make hobos senators because they represent the common man!
no. grow up, there is a reason you arent rich and powerful like them. They are smarter than you and better than you, they should be telling you what to do. get back in line you god damn american just because you have the right to say whatever you want doesnt mean the crap that comes out of your mouth doesnt stink.
go back to grade school and think really hard about WHY the 40 year old woman who isnt in touch with the 7 year olds she is teaching is the teacher. oh - i know why, shes smarter and better than you.
how can americans throw away the greatest right in the world, that to vote. Go to university or maybe read some books and then talk politics when you actually know something. /rage
how can americans throw away the greatest right in the world, that to vote. Go to university or maybe read some books and then talk politics when you actually know something. /rage
I love how people draw ridiculous conclusions from what they read. Who has ever mentioned giving up your right to vote? There is a world of difference from a right to vote and an obligation to vote. I also fail to see how it's 'the greatest right in the world', I'm fairly sure if i had to choose, my various rights to personal freedom, right to dignity etc all feature way above my right to vote, in fact looking at all the rights I do have, my right(obligation in my case) to vote features pretty far down on the list.
I answer with this:
How can americans throw away their right to not vote? By obligating yourself to vote you are discarding that right.
If you want to vote, go ahead, knock yourself out, but if you don't want to vote, guess whats awesome? You don't have to either, don't let any ultra nationalistic fanatic tell you what you can or can't do concerning a choice whether you exercise a right or not.
So many illogical people in here are trying to determine what exactly something (a vote) is worth to someone. We get it, you don't value your right to vote, but don't try to come in here with some economist trying to place value on WHAT SOMETHING MEANS TO ME. No statistical model will ever be able to define how I and others feel, so get that crap out of here. Hell, even the father of modern economics wrote an entire book on this, maybe you all should go reread it.
how can americans throw away the greatest right in the world, that to vote. Go to university or maybe read some books and then talk politics when you actually know something. /rage
I love how people draw ridiculous conclusions from what they read. Who has ever mentioned giving up your right to vote? There is a world of difference from a right to vote and an obligation to vote. I also fail to see how it's 'the greatest right in the world', I'm fairly sure if i had to choose, my various rights to personal freedom, right to dignity etc all feature way above my right to vote, in fact looking at all the rights I do have, my right(obligation in my case) to vote features pretty far down on the list.
the power of the vote is in that you cant infringe the other rights while you have the ability to vote. you can always vote to limit your other rights. ;-)
I feel exactly the way you do. The political system is insanely corrupt, and such a huge portion of American voters will vote whichever way the TV tells them to.
The voting system is hugely flawed too... there are far superior systems of voting that prevent terrible candidates from getting nominated due to vote splitting. In the current system you could have two intelligent moderates and one crazy "religious law is the only law" fundamentalist, and the fundie will win because the other candidates are competing for the same votes.
However, I do vote. I vote for a third party candidate in every election. A high vote count for a third party candidate will scare the two major parties into taking more moderate positions, out of fear of losing their support.
So while my vote is technically "wasted" on a candidate who won't win, third party voters are sending a message to cut down on the partisan craziness or else there's a chance the two-party system will become a three-party system -- the very last thing they'd ever want to see.
On March 02 2012 12:27 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On March 02 2012 12:21 WackaAlpaca wrote:
how can americans throw away the greatest right in the world, that to vote. Go to university or maybe read some books and then talk politics when you actually know something. /rage
I love how people draw ridiculous conclusions from what they read. Who has ever mentioned giving up your right to vote? There is a world of difference from a right to vote and an obligation to vote. I also fail to see how it's 'the greatest right in the world', I'm fairly sure if i had to choose, my various rights to personal freedom, right to dignity etc all feature way above my right to vote, in fact looking at all the rights I do have, my right(obligation in my case) to vote features pretty far down on the list.
the power of the vote is in that you cant infringe the other rights while you have the ability to vote. you can always vote to limit your other rights. ;-)
Well to be fair, there are few if any direct democracies in the world, so noone gets to vote to restrict their rights, they could vote in someone who wants to restrict other rights.
On March 02 2012 12:27 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On March 02 2012 12:21 WackaAlpaca wrote:
how can americans throw away the greatest right in the world, that to vote. Go to university or maybe read some books and then talk politics when you actually know something. /rage
I love how people draw ridiculous conclusions from what they read. Who has ever mentioned giving up your right to vote? There is a world of difference from a right to vote and an obligation to vote. I also fail to see how it's 'the greatest right in the world', I'm fairly sure if i had to choose, my various rights to personal freedom, right to dignity etc all feature way above my right to vote, in fact looking at all the rights I do have, my right(obligation in my case) to vote features pretty far down on the list.
the power of the vote is in that you cant infringe the other rights while you have the ability to vote. you can always vote to limit your other rights. ;-)
Well to be fair, there are few if any direct democracies in the world, so noone gets to vote to restrict their rights, they could vote in someone who wants to restrict other rights.
yep. its a representational democracy. however, there are still voter ballots that restrict rights. california just voted to amend the constitution to prevent gay marriage so that the courts couldnt decide the issue for them (although the courts have basically said so far that the constitutional amendment is unconstitional).
On March 02 2012 12:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On March 02 2012 12:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
On March 02 2012 12:27 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On March 02 2012 12:21 WackaAlpaca wrote:
how can americans throw away the greatest right in the world, that to vote. Go to university or maybe read some books and then talk politics when you actually know something. /rage
I love how people draw ridiculous conclusions from what they read. Who has ever mentioned giving up your right to vote? There is a world of difference from a right to vote and an obligation to vote. I also fail to see how it's 'the greatest right in the world', I'm fairly sure if i had to choose, my various rights to personal freedom, right to dignity etc all feature way above my right to vote, in fact looking at all the rights I do have, my right(obligation in my case) to vote features pretty far down on the list.
the power of the vote is in that you cant infringe the other rights while you have the ability to vote. you can always vote to limit your other rights. ;-)
Well to be fair, there are few if any direct democracies in the world, so noone gets to vote to restrict their rights, they could vote in someone who wants to restrict other rights.
yep. its a representational democracy. however, there are still voter ballots that restrict rights. california just voted to amend the constitution to prevent gay marriage so that the courts couldnt decide the issue for them (although the courts have basically said so far that the constitutional amendment is unconstitional).
On March 02 2012 12:38 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On March 02 2012 12:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
On March 02 2012 12:27 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:
On March 02 2012 12:21 WackaAlpaca wrote:
how can americans throw away the greatest right in the world, that to vote. Go to university or maybe read some books and then talk politics when you actually know something. /rage
I love how people draw ridiculous conclusions from what they read. Who has ever mentioned giving up your right to vote? There is a world of difference from a right to vote and an obligation to vote. I also fail to see how it's 'the greatest right in the world', I'm fairly sure if i had to choose, my various rights to personal freedom, right to dignity etc all feature way above my right to vote, in fact looking at all the rights I do have, my right(obligation in my case) to vote features pretty far down on the list.
the power of the vote is in that you cant infringe the other rights while you have the ability to vote. you can always vote to limit your other rights. ;-)
Well to be fair, there are few if any direct democracies in the world, so noone gets to vote to restrict their rights, they could vote in someone who wants to restrict other rights.
yep. its a representational democracy. however, there are still voter ballots that restrict rights. california just voted to amend the constitution to prevent gay marriage so that the courts couldnt decide the issue for them (although the courts have basically said so far that the constitutional amendment is unconstitional).
Is that a right or a freedom though?
im not sure how you differentiate them, so i cant answer that.
Here's an excerpt I like to look at every now and then. Where its from, I really don't recall.
"They want us to believe its a democrats vs republicans thing when in reality its a federal government vs the people thing.
Democrat, Republican doesn't matter... they all want to control us. They use this back and forth game to distract us while they take away our rights and send us to die in their wars."
"Remove the electoral college and make every vote count!" I agree with this statement.
Edit: I vote for every presidential election. And I try to vote for every other minor election that comes my way. Why? My population, the young adults don't vote enough, so why would the people being voted for care for a demographic they know won't vote. The more you vote, the more they know we care... The more they will cater to us, or so I say.
I don't vote either. Considering the anemic voter tunouts of 50-55% for presidential elections and 35-40% for midterm elections I'd say we aren't alone. Democracy is just a tool to placate the masses and make us think we are in control of our own lives. You and I effectively have no more say in what our government does than a peasant in China. Republicans and Democrats are just 2 sides of the same coin anyways, only concerned with opposing each other and grabbing as much power as possible.
I blame it on the electoral college. In most states, your vote is basicly worthless because a vast majority people in that state are either republican or democrat. In very few states (florida for example) does your vote actually count for something. This is because that state is divided very closely between republicans and democrats. If you voted democrat in florida, it would have more of an impact than if you voted democrat in texas, because in texas almost everyone votes republican.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
not rigged? How about bush 2000 decision in florida or 2004 in Iowa? Look at the GOP vote in Maine, blatant election fraud by Mitt Romney's handlers. But its also vote rigging for two parties that are essencially the same anyway.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
not rigged? How about bush 2000 decision in florida or 2004 in Iowa? Look at the GOP vote in Maine, blatant election fraud by Mitt Romney's handlers. But its also vote rigging for two parties that are essencially the same anyway.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
You only have 2 parties and they're owned by the same coorporations, so they don't need to rig the elections to make sure they stay in power
what corporations are these?
In the US? Primarily Hollywood, the music industry, and oil companies. Those three basically dwarf everything else when it comes to campaign contributions and lobbying funds.
as long as we are talking conspiracy theories, you left out the banks, the pharmaceutical companies and the weapon manufacturers who also have extensive lobbying efforts.
was going to add banks specifically and yes aside from your slandering use of the word it is a conspiracy. You should take a look at the mandate and operations of the Federal Reserve alone.
Meh Im 14. The reason I vote then, obviously, is that I have significant moral reservations about the directions I will accidentally set our country on.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
You only have 2 parties and they're owned by the same coorporations, so they don't need to rig the elections to make sure they stay in power
what corporations are these?
In the US? Primarily Hollywood, the music industry, and oil companies. Those three basically dwarf everything else when it comes to campaign contributions and lobbying funds.
as long as we are talking conspiracy theories, you left out the banks, the pharmaceutical companies and the weapon manufacturers who also have extensive lobbying efforts.
was going to add banks specifically and yes aside from your slandering use of the word it is a conspiracy. You should take a look at the mandate and operations of the Federal Reserve alone.
please tell, because i am sure if i looked them up they wouldnt be nearly as interesting as what you think they are.
On March 02 2012 12:04 HardlyNever wrote: This thread is depressing. There are kids who died in Vietnam who couldn't vote. Enough people spoke up and took action to make the voting age 18, not 21.Women couldn't vote for the first 130 or so years of the United States' existence. They didn't sit around with bullshit excuses about "how their vote would never matter." They took action and faced social persecution so future generations could vote. If you are an American citizen that is anything than a land-owning adult white male, chances are people suffered for your right to vote, and you piss that suffering away because you're too goddamn lazy to go put a fucking slip in a box. "My vote doesn't matter, I read something on the internet that says it." What a waste. If the country is fucked up, it is because too many people are too lazy to do anything about it politically, voting or otherwise. This is why extreme positions in this country are so over-represented; moderate voters are too damn lazy and unmotivated to do anything about it. It is hard to get fired up and passionate about comprise, moderation and understanding, but that is what good government is.
If you don't vote, fine. But don't come here and tell me voting is stupid. It only makes you look like a basement-dweller that is too lazy to take any action to change the world they live in.
This is my general feeling towards this thread. I expected a post like this in the first page, but I was shocked to find so many who agreed with the TC.
The celebration of apathy and laziness is truly more dangerous than anything you can think of towards the flaws of capitalism and democracy.
All of these are either movements that were mostly bottom-up, or elections that were determined by large numbers of regular citizens becoming hugely dissatisfied with the status quo and voting as such.
How and why politics works is so incredibly complex that these simplistic (and largely self-serving) arguments about how 'corporations control everything' or how you have no more say than a peasant in China just have to make one shake his head and want to give up.
When you don't manage to gather support and exercise the political power to execute the decisions you want, it's the easy way out to whine and QQ that the deck is stacked against you.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
not rigged? How about bush 2000 decision in florida or 2004 in Iowa? Look at the GOP vote in Maine, blatant election fraud by Mitt Romney's handlers. But its also vote rigging for two parties that are essencially the same anyway.
if there was any truth to it all, the courts and FEC would have thrown out the election results.
unless the investigators into it were murdered. There isn't a controversy unless the media reports on it and authorities investigate. If neither happens or those that do investigate are threatened or murdered (Investigator Raymond Lemme) then the story goes away. Raymond Lemme was a few days away from presenting his, as he put it, damning evidence, then guess what, he is found dead in a motel in a different state with all his files on the case gone and the police rule it a suicide. The crime scene pictures leek to the internet show mass bruising and other anomolies. That is a powerfull dis-incentive, and a clear example of how deep corruption runs in the US.
unless the investigators into it were murdered. There isn't a controversy unless the media reports on it and authorities investigate. If neither happens or those that do investigate are threatened or murdered (Investigator Raymond Lemme) then the story goes away. Raymond Lemme was a few days away from presenting his, as he put it, damning evidence, then guess what, he is found dead in a motel in a different state with all his files on the case gone and the police rule it a suicide. The crime scene pictures leek to the internet show mass bruising and other anomolies. That is a powerfull dis-incentive, and a clear example of how deep corruption runs in the US.
Why are Brad Friedman, the editors and publisher of Hustler magazine, and others who have written extensively about Raymond Lemme's 'investigation' still alive?
It must be nice to present 10% of the story to push your narrative and leave 90% out.
I vote in Presidential elections but only for someone who isn't a Democrat or Republican unless they are actually the better candidate, which I haven't seen yet. For some of the reasons mentioned in the OP I agree that the system is dumb. I want more people represented with more parties or just more people who have a real chance at winning. I don't see that happening in my lifetime but it doesn't stop me from trying to change things with my vote.
All of these are either movements that were mostly bottom-up, or elections that were determined by large numbers of regular citizens becoming hugely dissatisfied with the status quo and voting as such.
How and why politics works is so incredibly complex that these simplistic (and largely self-serving) arguments about how 'corporations control everything' or how you have no more say than a peasant in China just have to make one shake his head and want to give up.
When you don't manage to gather support and exercise the political power to execute the decisions you want, it's the easy way out to whine and QQ that the deck is stacked against you.
you just havent gotten the bigger picture yet, once you see the blatant corruption and the fact the choice is so controlled there is no choice really at all then you may get where non voters are coming from. I was pro government for a long time, and pro vote, but after seeing so much corruption the last 10 years, and how the system works and is stacked for a predetermined outcome, voting seems pointless.
The fact that you believe the wealthy majority have free control of the govt is a conspiracy esque clove smoking thing in itself. The fact is that the great majority of people who are wealthy do not have a large stake in the govt. and that the govt. tends to serve the middle class more often than not. After all our countries median income is gigantic compared to most countries in the world. The fact is that candidates voted into office will amost all times be listening to the people and while they will try to push their own agenda, most times they base their actions on the constituency that they represent. I understand you feel that the electoral college is unfair and makes your vote not count, and probably that is a pretty true statement. The fact is that that is how the electoral system in the US works and that is how it will stay without a 2/3 majority from the states to change that fact. Your vote still mattes quite heavily actually, in fact with the electoral college it could be argues that your vote matters even more in fact because a large majority can win an entire state versus it being split in half. I suggest you take a course in american politics for free online from a college and get a deep understanding of the system if this is troubling you since that will really help you understand why things are the way they are.
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?
If you don't vote, you shouldn't be allowed to complain about your government. Again. Ever.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
not rigged? How about bush 2000 decision in florida or 2004 in Iowa? Look at the GOP vote in Maine, blatant election fraud by Mitt Romney's handlers. But its also vote rigging for two parties that are essencially the same anyway.
if there was any truth to it all, the courts and FEC would have thrown out the election results.
unless the investigators into it were murdered. There isn't a controversy unless the media reports on it and authorities investigate. If neither happens or those that do investigate are threatened or murdered (Investigator Raymond Lemme) then the story goes away. Raymond Lemme was a few days away from presenting his, as he put it, damning evidence, then guess what, he is found dead in a motel in a different state with all his files on the case gone and the police rule it a suicide. The crime scene pictures leek to the internet show mass bruising and other anomolies. That is a powerfull dis-incentive, and a clear example of how deep corruption runs in the US.
so, only one person cared about this issue, and he had the only evidence? yeah, im going to put you into the conspiracy theory group with the people who say the corporations run the world and political parties.
unless the investigators into it were murdered. There isn't a controversy unless the media reports on it and authorities investigate. If neither happens or those that do investigate are threatened or murdered (Investigator Raymond Lemme) then the story goes away. Raymond Lemme was a few days away from presenting his, as he put it, damning evidence, then guess what, he is found dead in a motel in a different state with all his files on the case gone and the police rule it a suicide. The crime scene pictures leek to the internet show mass bruising and other anomolies. That is a powerfull dis-incentive, and a clear example of how deep corruption runs in the US.
Why are Brad Friedman, the editors and publisher of Hustler magazine, and others who have written extensively about Raymond Lemme's 'investigation' still alive?
It must be nice to present 10% of the story to push your narrative and leave 90% out.
maybe because Raymond Lemme was an actual official investigator assigned to investigate the alegations, so he himself held huge power in the matter? Its only too easy for anyone to blow off Brad Friedman, etc and call them conspiracy thoerists, you see how that word works? label any credible person that monicker and you immediately have an emotional irrational response of not trusting them.
people in the government lie when it serves there interest, not saying all government officials do this but there is definately a faction that does, and the rest just turn a blind eye.
I don't vote because I only want to vote for candidates I really believe in. If I still lived in MA, I would use my first vote ever for Elizabeth Warren but I don't and no one here in TX is worth voting for.
I refuse to accept the principle that all politicians are liars and cheats. I will not resign myself to vote for one, rather I will accept that if I cared enough I could run myself or, better yet, I could find someone to back who wasnt even if they would lose.
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?
If you don't vote, you shouldn't be allowed to complain about your government. Again. Ever.
I don't vote for president. Want to know why?
I voted for Gore in 2000. The electoral college pretty much robbed me of my vote. Until that system is changed I remain disillusioned with it.
I vote for other positions though...for all it matters (it doesn't)
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?
If you don't vote, you shouldn't be allowed to complain about your government. Again. Ever.
I don't vote for president. Want to know why?
I voted for Gore in 2000. The electoral college pretty much robbed me of my vote. Until that system is changed I remain disillusioned with it.
I vote for other positions though...for all it matters (it doesn't)
Voting is the LEAST you can do to support a candidate or contribute politically.
For me, I don't vote because I live in a colony/territory of the United States. My island is something that US owns, and has refused to allow to either become independent or become a state for more than a century.
I actively participate in the local elections, but as a territory, we have no power at the national level. All laws that come out of Washington D.C. apply to Guam, and we have neither a vote for President (including electoral college votes) or any vote in the US Congress.
On March 02 2012 11:55 ihufa wrote: Why vote when ur not living in a democracy?? voting in US is like voting in Iran etc. It's obvious to the rest of the world that the election is bullshit but the national media tries to make it look like a democratic election.
I don't mean to be rude, but the US elections are not at all "rigged" and are democratic at the heart. We just have a system that is not direct democracy. It doesn't mean that our votes don't matter.
not rigged? How about bush 2000 decision in florida or 2004 in Iowa? Look at the GOP vote in Maine, blatant election fraud by Mitt Romney's handlers. But its also vote rigging for two parties that are essencially the same anyway.
if there was any truth to it all, the courts and FEC would have thrown out the election results.
unless the investigators into it were murdered. There isn't a controversy unless the media reports on it and authorities investigate. If neither happens or those that do investigate are threatened or murdered (Investigator Raymond Lemme) then the story goes away. Raymond Lemme was a few days away from presenting his, as he put it, damning evidence, then guess what, he is found dead in a motel in a different state with all his files on the case gone and the police rule it a suicide. The crime scene pictures leek to the internet show mass bruising and other anomolies. That is a powerfull dis-incentive, and a clear example of how deep corruption runs in the US.
I'm sorry, but political strategies in America aren't so black (Yes, I actually have been there). It's about raising money and spending it in ways to convince people (such as advertising) while doing things that the ordinary citizen can do (such as comment on videos and blogs about candidates). It's exactly like how every American citizen thinks it is. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's not backroom dealing and murders and vote rigging. It's not even CLOSE.
While it is far from perfect; and perhaps even merely an illusion, I think it is important to hold on to the dream of poltical representation. In typical SC2 community fashion of ranking players etc, I'll use a simple way to explain my thought.
Ideal democracy > Illusionary democracy > straight up dictatorship
I suspect that a lack of political will and interest is hidden under the guise of 'disillusionment'. What have -you- done lately to change the system? I'm not asking for monumental actions, but as an old Russian (I think) saying goes, "Little drops of water wear down big stones."
We, as human beings, have come a long way in history. We haven't reached the pinnacle of political perfection, and perhaps we never will. But to refuse to vote is a step backwards. To refuse to vote is to discard all our collective achievements. I hope we never take our freedoms for granted.
If we don't partake in politics in a greater sense - not just voting, but also campaigning, rallying, etc.; excercising our political freedoms to its fullest potential, then we will never see any real change. For generations, we have just sat back and let politicians buy votes from us. We have done the barest minimum - only voting. And when we don't see results, we are disappointed and blame 'voting'
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. It doesn't matter how much money people or corporations or aliens from Mars pour into political campaigns, only votes count. From my perspective, I've been voting in nearly every election since I turned 18 and could care less if people don't want to vote. Generally the non-voting, apathic people who don't vote wouldn't vote like I do, so I'd rather they stay at home. What gets to me is when dead people and people who shouldn't be voting vote, and the people running the election allow it to happen.
So, to answer your question, why so many Americans don't vote, because they are too stupid to cast an intelligent vote, so we're better off without those votes.
On March 02 2012 14:38 Sumahi wrote: For me, I don't vote because I live in a colony/territory of the United States. My island is something that US owns, and has refused to allow to either become independent or become a state for more than a century.
I actively participate in the local elections, but as a territory, we have no power at the national level. All laws that come out of Washington D.C. apply to Guam, and we have neither a vote for President (including electoral college votes) or any vote in the US Congress.
Out of curiousity (I was just reading stuff on 51st state and such), what is the popular sentiment about this in Guam and why? I think it's a foregone conclusion that Puerto Rico will be given statehood when they finally ask for it, but Guam isn't a lock.
And you do have some power at the national level by way of presidential primary votes, however limited it may be.
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
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.
What's the point of voting when polls show that the majority of voters don't know what their candidates stand on issues are? What's the point of voting when polls show that US public opinion on major core issues stands in direct conflict with the policies being forwarded?
US elections are run and won like toothpaste commercials. Most people didn't know what Obama, Bush, Clinton stood on fundamental issues – and that's exactly how it's supposed to be when the candidates are presented as a "good ol chap" who you want to have a beer with, and when empty slogans like "change" and "hope" overshadows concrete standpoints. Furthermore, since it's usually the candidate with the most sucessful marketing-campaign that wins it's also usually the canidate who has got the most of the private sector behind him who wins – and this is reflected in the policies enacted. The US basically has one big business party with two sligghtly different flavours aimed at pleasing their main constituents – big business – rather than the domestic population.
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.
People are stupid and easily swayed to either side by effective spending of money, which is why the candidate who spends the most money is nearly always the winner. As a consequence of the resulting political contributions arms race, politicians are beholden to the 1% who can throw enough money around to make or break an election.
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.
oh, and people being stupid is a matter of opinion.
statistically speaking, the vast majority of people fall within a very constrained range of intelligence. education, experience and opinion differ much more. so while you may think someone is wrong or ignorant, to say they are stupid is either ignorant or, in cases such as my own, supportive of a highly technocratic system.
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!
And what would your dad say if every option to vote for was shit?
You vote for the candidate you hate less. Or you give support to a candidate who you support more than either but has no hope of winning. Even if a third candidate doesn't win, if he has a strong showing then it encourages the primary parties to lean in that direction so as to convince voters to vote for them. Ultimately, the candidates have to kind of develop a platform that 50.1% of Americans feel comfortable voting for.
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!
And what would your dad say if every option to vote for was shit?
You vote for the candidate you hate less. Or you give support to a candidate who you support more than either but has no hope of winning. Even if a third candidate doesn't win, if he has a strong showing then it encourages the primary parties to lean in that direction so as to convince voters to vote for them. Ultimately, the candidates have to kind of develop a platform that 50.1% of Americans feel comfortable voting for.
One upside to this tho is that more and more US citizens seem to be aware of the situation. Hopefully – instead of turning into apathy and dispair you guys do something about it like demonstrations, civil disobedience and organize yourselves. Just because the electoral system holds little hope doesn't mean that the us population can't change the country for the better by their own.
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.
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?
In the end whoever gets in doesn't really matter. Sure some of their ideas lean towards left/right, but what difference does it make to the individual in their daily life? I live in South Carolina, so no use voting I see your point there. Also we're not a democracy. A true democracy means everyone votes on everything which isn't possible.
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?
In the end whoever gets in doesn't really matter. Sure some of their ideas lean towards left/right, but what difference does it make to the individual in their daily life? I live in South Carolina, so no use voting I see your point there. Also we're not a democracy. A true democracy means everyone votes on everything which isn't possible.
Holy shit is this a horrible cycle. Civic inactivity leads to civic ignorance which leads to civic inactivity, and that is what you find yourself in. You as a US citizen should know that you don't live in a democracy, you live in a Republic, as defined by the constitution and all subsequent legislative affirmations.
There are substantial gaps between left and right candidates, you should educate yourself on some of them, and make an appropriate voting action based on your personal beliefs. If everyone was like you then we would be in an even worse state than we are in presently.
On March 02 2012 20:50 Xapti wrote: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.
Personally, I find it disgusting when people cast a worthless vote and congratulate themselves for doing something meaningful.
On March 02 2012 20:50 Xapti wrote: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.
Revolutions don't happen because people throw away their votes. Revolutions happen when people actually, y'know, revolt. Casting worthless votes is just a BS way to feel good about yourself without actually making sacrifices to do something real.
On March 02 2012 20:50 Xapti wrote: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.
No one in power cares about the opinions of the populace, beyond the ability of those opinions to threaten their power, and in the American electoral system, third parties are incapable of threatening them. Thus, expressing your opinion in this manner is worth nothing. You're far too optimstic in believing that showing the opinions of the population will achieve anything meaningful. I know this sounds depressing, but such is the cold, hard reality of politics.
No one in power cares about the opinions of the populace, beyond the ability of those opinions to threaten their power, and in the American electoral system, third parties are incapable of threatening them. Thus, expressing your opinion in this manner is worth nothing. You're far too optimstic in believing that showing the opinions of the population will achieve anything meaningful. I know this sounds depressing, but such is the cold, hard reality of politics.
Good job contradicting your entire assertion in your first sentence. What is the ability to threaten power in the democratic system, if voting is not it?
Go ask the 63 House Democrats who lost their seats in 2010 if the expression of opinion of voters is worth nothing. Don't you think that the Democratic Party would have preferred to keep them in office?
Or the 680 Democrats who lost their seats in State legislatures.
Go ask the Republicans who lost in 2006 and 2008. Those elections had real effects at the state and national level. Huge amounts of new laws and political dreams strengthened, brought alive, weakened and vanquished have occurred.
Sorry that your particular political opinions seem unable to garner support that is strong enough to be made into law, perhaps you should analyze why your fellow citizens don't seem too enamored of doing what you want instead of pathetic QQ about how it doesn't mean anything. And that's all your arguments are, although "arguments" is probably giving them too much legitimacy. It's just QQ. Nothing more. I'm not getting my way so the problem is the system. Funny how the ideology out of power is the one that QQs the hardest, and the longer out of power, the harder the QQ.
It was just so unfair to Republicans that the minority in the Senate could filibuster legislation and judicial nominees from 2001-2007, and how from 2007-present it is now Democrats complaining about the unfairness of the filibuster. It's all the same. Funny how in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was the labor movement that was QQing about how the system was unfair, and how since then it has largely been capital that has done the QQing. There are literally dozens of examples. And yet, somehow, things changed. Despite the system being oh-so-unfair, both sides of any given issue have gotten victories as well as losses.
It's only when the losses occur that the victories are forgotten and the system becomes unfair. When you're winning, that's certainly not unfair, is it?
Mommy won' t let you stick your hand in the cookie jar, so Mommy is unfair.
This is why I like Switzerland s political system. We never Vote for 1 Person we vote for 200 people, well we vote per Kanton (like a state) so we only get to vote for a certain amount of those 200. And we vote for another 46 (2 per Kanton). I like this system because the 200 people are not necessary wealthy, some of them are lawyers and some are farmers.
But I get your point and it bugs me as well, it's not really motivating anyone to go vote for the guy with the most money.
To the other point of not voting because it would not make a difference is like saying: "This plane will fly regardless if I am on it or not" (Assuming you don't like flying with a Plane while you could have taken the train) And I also think it affects other people around you, because if you are motivated to vote you might be able to motivate others to vote and ofc also the other way around.
But I think you still should vote for your favorite candidate, just because we are lucky to have a semi democracy and actually get to vote.
On March 02 2012 22:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Good job contradicting your entire assertion in your first sentence. What is the ability to threaten power in the democratic system, if voting is not it?
Read the post I was responding to. He was talking about voting for third parties, which is nearly always pointless. Throwing your vote away is not a way to threaten those in power.
On March 02 2012 22:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Sorry that your particular political opinions seem unable to garner support that is strong enough to be made into law, perhaps you should analyze why your fellow citizens don't seem too enamored of doing what you want instead of pathetic QQ about how it doesn't mean anything. And that's all your arguments are, although "arguments" is probably giving them too much legitimacy. It's just QQ. Nothing more. I'm not getting my way so the problem is the system. Funny how the ideology out of power is the one that QQs the hardest, and the longer out of power, the harder the QQ.
What the fuck are you talking about? The fact that voting rarely has any effect isn't QQ, it's a statement of fact.
How in the world did you decide that I'm support an "ideology out of power", when I don't identify with any political party? What "ideology" did you somehow conclude that I support?
On March 02 2012 22:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:It's only when the losses occur that the victories are forgotten and the system becomes unfair. When you're winning, that's certainly not unfair, is it?
Did you confuse me for someone else? When did I ever complain that the system was unfair?
On March 02 2012 23:14 zalz wrote:Plenty of things have changed in the USA as a result of voting and popular protest.
Obviously. That's not the point being discussed here, which is that the benefits of voting to an individual citizen are outweighed by the costs except in rare circumstances where a race is closely contested.
On March 02 2012 23:14 zalz wrote:Your suggestion that what the USA really need is to decapitate some of its elected officials is beyond foolish. It's childish.
Democracy is the best government in the long run for unscrupulous people and corporations to deceive and get their way. It's a government of and by actors - In the name of freedom: and so you can't argue against it...
For me, voting is more about spreading a good mindset about voting rather than trying to affect the current election outcome. I'd rather tell all my friends that I'm going to vote and then not actually do it, than telling my friends that I'm not going to vote and then secretly sneak away and do it. I simple believe that election outcomes become better the more people that vote. And I believe that how people talk about it is more important than how they act(vote).
Then again, if you live in one of the heavily skewed states of US, with the amazing democratic system you have over there, I can understand the frustration. But I'd probably vote anyway.
I remember this one Jon Stewart quote - "To the people that think their vote counts - imagine your vote is a deer tick. Now imagine the presidential election is the continent of Asia."
At any rate, I think doing away with the electoral college and counting votes - we have the technology to accurately count the millions of votes these days - would get a lot more people to vote, because they aren't voting Republican in a blue state or voting Democrat in a red state anymore - they're voting against the whole country which is relatively purple.
you know what the saddest thing is about this thread? it's that there have been people in here that have written over 1,000 words justifying why they shouldn't vote, or why they don't vote, or why their vote doesn't matter. in my life, i've probably met ~100 people that feel that exact same way. i've noticed that they are all willing to spend, on average, 30-60 minutes arguing about it.
if you spent 30-60 minutes on arguing why the issues you care about should be payed attention to, and each wrote a 1,000 word letter to your congressman, your senator, and the President; you might get something done. you might see some results. if you were willing to put in half the effort you put in on convincing us that you shouldn't vote because it doesn't change anything on actually changing something, you might actually see what you want.
i don't know why i'm wasting my time on this, because the honest truth is, 90% of the people who feel that way, who feel that their vote doesn't matter for whatever reason; 90% of them disagree with me politically. they would vote for and support things and candidates that i wouldn't. so i guess i should be thanking all of you. if you all decided to actually do something instead of being apathetic, i might have to do more than vote and give minimal effort. but you won't. you wanna know why you won't? because you don't actually care. when people really care about an issue, they are willing to put in effort for that issue. but you people aren't willing to put in the five minutes it takes to register to vote and the five minutes it takes to actually vote. half of you won't even vote for local elections, where 1 vote does matter, and where you actually can change things. the other half is willing to vote for local elections, but won't even take the one and a half extra second to put a pen on a paper and mark down the candidate you would rather have.
then you come in here and complain that the system doesn't recognize you? you put in almost no effort when you just vote. in what fantasy world does almost no effort give you huge results? in what fantasy world should you be able to do absolutely nothing at all for yourself, but still get the results you want? and instead of saying: "ok, maybe my one vote doesn't make a huge difference, maybe i should put in a little more effort if i really care"; you're gonna go out and spend all that effort and all that time telling us why we shouldn't vote. and what did you change, except for gauranteeing that you will never get what you want? but that's the saddest thing, is that you will sometimes get what you want, whether you know it or not, because of all of us who do go out there and vote and campaign and lobby for you. you give us the responsibility for yourself and then you complain because you don't feel represented? well then go out there and force them to represent you. and don't give me this bs about "i can't do anything!". there are a million and a half things you could do, but you don't want to do them because they require more than ten minutes of your time.
but again, why am i saying this? you people don't agree with me politically, i can already tell. if you took one tenth the effort you put in telling me why the system is broken and put that effort into "fixing" the system, i would never get what i want. so on behalf of all those candidates and policies that you hate, let me thank you for not voting, and not lobbying, and not campaigning, and not putting in the slightest effort. let me thank your friends who do the same. let me thank the people who spend a million dollars making a documentary about it, the people who write 3 articles about it, the people who spend more time whining about the system than they do trying to fix it. let me not only thank you, let me encourage you to keep not voting, to keep whining, to keep complaining, and to keep doing nothing.
why should any of us care about anything that you want? you won't even put in the tiniest shred of effort and time into caring about it.
"oh but the electoral college!?!"
that's the system we use. that's the system we have always used. you want to complain now because the guy you didn't like didn't win, or because you live in a state that doesn't agree with you poltically? well boohoo. i'm a conservative republican in CALIFORNIA! don't come crying to me about a state's electoral votes going toward the candidate you don't like. don't come complaining to me about candidates you like ignoring your state because it's already a lost cause for them. and don't come crying to me about the electoral system when you won't spend three minutes finding out who the hell doesn't like the electoral system and voting for them, and supporting them, and rallying for them. god forbid that you do, because i hate the idea of a popular vote system. but you all love it! if you love it so much, why don't you support it?
and don't even try to give me the argument of "oh but it will never change anyway."
so what? so the world should always give you what you want? you want it this way so we should all just bend over backward to give you it without you putting in a shred of effort? you don't even try to change it, who the hell are you to tell us that we should? you know why you don't change it? because you like it. you like having an excuse as to why you should get something for nothing.
I am reading a LOT of things kind of bashing on ppl that say voting doesn't matter.. well lets see Does a country really want the right for our government to establish a military presents anywhere in the united states? I would say that most of our country doesn't .. does our country really think that Marijuana is a HORRID drug? I really dont think our country thinks its that bad compared to other HORRID drugs... people keep saying that the Government does care about what the people think... The people have been taken out of the action. Change isnt done by voting like we think it is.. change is done like we handled SOPA however ... SOPA isn't over yet and if you think it is you are wrong. The American people have to STAND UP to the problem we face in our country... and we dont we think that voting for a new president will make shit better it doesn't. That president has the interests of the Major Company that put him in that office and gave him MILLIONS of dollars for his campaign. Even Obama we fell for the "change" part when he just made things a lot worse.. Now people are saying "I don't care who is in office just as long as its not Obama" so they pick Romney problem is Romney agrees with almost everything Obama has done. VOTING isn't the problem to be honest its the people of America turning blind eyes to a lot of issues we dont address. If we want something done we have to do it... but we are busy working paying bills and taking care of families ... I am not saying don't vote.. I am not saying voting matters or doesn't matter. I am saying there needs to be something done and we are arguing over the wrong thing.
Without the electoral college system in place you would see presidential races spend 90 percent of their time in Texas, NY, and Cali and candidates wouldn't give a shit what someone in Iowa thinks.
On March 03 2012 01:03 SeizeTheDay wrote: I am reading a LOT of things kind of bashing on ppl that say voting doesn't matter.. well lets see Does a country really want the right for our government to establish a military presents anywhere in the united states? I would say that most of our country doesn't .. does our country really think that Marijuana is a HORRID drug? I really dont think our country thinks its that bad compared to other HORRID drugs... people keep saying that the Government does care about what the people think... The people have been taken out of the action. Change isnt done by voting like we think it is.. change is done like we handled SOPA however ... SOPA isn't over yet and if you think it is you are wrong. The American people have to STAND UP to the problem we face in our country... and we dont we think that voting for a new president will make shit better it doesn't. That president has the interests of the Major Company that put him in that office and gave him MILLIONS of dollars for his campaign. Even Obama we fell for the "change" part when he just made things a lot worse.. Now people are saying "I don't care who is in office just as long as its not Obama" so they pick Romney problem is Romney agrees with almost everything Obama has done. VOTING isn't the problem to be honest its the people of America turning blind eyes to a lot of issues we dont address. If we want something done we have to do it... but we are busy working paying bills and taking care of families ... I am not saying don't vote.. I am not saying voting matters or doesn't matter. I am saying there needs to be something done and we are arguing over the wrong thing.
I am sure rallying behind the "voting doesn't matter people" instead of telling them otherwise will accomplish those goals...
On March 03 2012 01:03 SeizeTheDay wrote: I am reading a LOT of things kind of bashing on ppl that say voting doesn't matter.. well lets see Does a country really want the right for our government to establish a military presents anywhere in the united states? I would say that most of our country doesn't .. does our country really think that Marijuana is a HORRID drug? I really dont think our country thinks its that bad compared to other HORRID drugs... people keep saying that the Government does care about what the people think... The people have been taken out of the action. Change isnt done by voting like we think it is.. change is done like we handled SOPA however ... SOPA isn't over yet and if you think it is you are wrong. The American people have to STAND UP to the problem we face in our country... and we dont we think that voting for a new president will make shit better it doesn't. That president has the interests of the Major Company that put him in that office and gave him MILLIONS of dollars for his campaign. Even Obama we fell for the "change" part when he just made things a lot worse.. Now people are saying "I don't care who is in office just as long as its not Obama" so they pick Romney problem is Romney agrees with almost everything Obama has done. VOTING isn't the problem to be honest its the people of America turning blind eyes to a lot of issues we dont address. If we want something done we have to do it... but we are busy working paying bills and taking care of families ... I am not saying don't vote.. I am not saying voting matters or doesn't matter. I am saying there needs to be something done and we are arguing over the wrong thing.
I am sure rallying behind the "voting doesn't matter people" instead of telling them otherwise will accomplish those goals...
Maybe you should read again ... and take smart lil comments you have and keep them to your self...
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?
In the end whoever gets in doesn't really matter. Sure some of their ideas lean towards left/right, but what difference does it make to the individual in their daily life? I live in South Carolina, so no use voting I see your point there. Also we're not a democracy. A true democracy means everyone votes on everything which isn't possible.
Holy shit is this a horrible cycle. Civic inactivity leads to civic ignorance which leads to civic inactivity, and that is what you find yourself in. You as a US citizen should know that you don't live in a democracy, you live in a Republic, as defined by the constitution and all subsequent legislative affirmations.
There are substantial gaps between left and right candidates, you should educate yourself on some of them, and make an appropriate voting action based on your personal beliefs. If everyone was like you then we would be in an even worse state than we are in presently.
I forget what the name is, but for years and years there has been only certain types of candidates that are chosen into office - those are are neither completely leftist or rightist. there is a long running trend that everyone who will get elected will be more towards the middle of the road, so what you said is pretty much invalid.
also, it's funny when people think what the president says they're going to do actually means anything - they don't actually know the true power of the president. they get lied to because during the campaign the president will say they're going to make this illegal, this legal, and change this, when in reality it's up to the house and senate to decide what happens.
On March 03 2012 01:12 Smat wrote: Without the electoral college system in place you would see presidential races spend 90 percent of their time in Texas, NY, and Cali and candidates wouldn't give a shit what someone in Iowa thinks.
the entire reason the electoral college system was set up was for the elite to make sure that the lower class citizens would be able to change nothing. the more you know.
On March 03 2012 01:00 bode927 wrote: I think the reason people vote here in the US is so they have a right to complain about it. Because if you don't vote, you have no right to complain.
Yeah this kind of somes up how I feel about the situation. If you don't vote, you don't really have a right to complain about the state of your nation. Voting is a vital part of our government and whether or not you "feel" like your vote matters it does. The voice of the people is their ability to cast their opinion in ballot form to help guide the future of our country.
I do agree with what some people have mentioned earlier that people voting without educating themselves first is a problem because they are not actually representing anything, they are just arbitrarily adding votes to someone or something that they know nothing about. As an American it's our duty to participate in our government. Educate yourself on candidates/issues and make your opinion known with your vote. It may not feel like your vote matters in this massive country full of voters but if everyone gives up the voice then who is making the decisions?
The fact is that the more people who educate themselves on these matters and cast intelligent votes that actually represent how they feel the better off our country will be in the long run. It's voter negligence and apathy that's the biggest threat to our government.
EDIT:
On March 03 2012 01:20 Silidons wrote: the entire reason the electoral college system was set up was for the elite to make sure that the lower class citizens would be able to change nothing. the more you know.
Wow this is so unbelievably false. It was created primarily so that smaller states still had a voice in the election. As someone already mentioned, if it was based solely on populace votes elections would be decided by 3 states more or less. With the electoral college the number of votes, although still weighted, allows every state to have a valid stake in the election. The "elite" as you call them are representatives of their state. If they ignore the majority vote of their states voters they won't find themselves in that position much longer since their position is elected as well.
On March 03 2012 01:12 Smat wrote: Without the electoral college system in place you would see presidential races spend 90 percent of their time in Texas, NY, and Cali and candidates wouldn't give a shit what someone in Iowa thinks.
the entire reason the electoral college system was set up was for the elite to make sure that the lower class citizens would be able to change nothing. the more you know. [/QUOTE] Doesn't change my point
On March 03 2012 01:12 Smat wrote: Without the electoral college system in place you would see presidential races spend 90 percent of their time in Texas, NY, and Cali and candidates wouldn't give a shit what someone in Iowa thinks.
As opposed to the current system where candidates spend 90% of their time in states like Iowa and don't bother with Texas, NY and Cali? Only a few battleground states matter in every presidential election. In fact, one of the biggest reasons politics is screwed up is because politicians don't represent the demographics of America properly.The majority of Americans have lived in urban settings since 1900 yet the majority of our politicians come from rural parts of the country. They're creating policies that favor small towns in the middle of nowhere, which is very inefficient.
On March 03 2012 01:00 bode927 wrote: I think the reason people vote here in the US is so they have a right to complain about it. Because if you don't vote, you have no right to complain.
Yeah this kind of somes up how I feel about the situation. If you don't vote, you don't really have a right to complain about the state of your nation. Voting is a vital part of our government and whether or not you "feel" like your vote matters it does. The voice of the people is their ability to cast their opinion in ballot form to help guide the future of our country.
I do agree with what some people have mentioned earlier that people voting without educating themselves first is a problem because they are not actually representing anything, they are just arbitrarily adding votes to someone or something that they know nothing about. As an American it's our duty to participate in our government. Educate yourself on candidates/issues and make your opinion known with your vote. It may not feel like your vote matters in this massive country full of voters but if everyone gives up the voice then who is making the decisions?
The fact is that the more people who educate themselves on these matters and cast intelligent votes that actually represent how they feel the better off our country will be in the long run. It's voter negligence and apathy that's the biggest threat to our government.
Its funny to me when i read things like this. I am not bashing you Achaia I am just saying that people really think like you do. Its funny because a lot of it educating yourself over the policies and stuff is great i agree you should do that. However I disagree with the fact you feel that if more people did this we would have better presidents or a better way of life. I think that people need to understand that the president is just one big liar and his policies really just mean how many people can I get to vote for me. Maybe he will act and change some things.. hell even Obama changed some things... but look at the state we are in now with the war just ending .. when we were told that was going to end the first year Obama was in office.. we ended up sending 20,000 more troops.. IF THAT WAS IN THE POLICIES I BET YOU OBAMA WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ELECTED. Do you see what I mean? Things are just an illusion so we feel safe and get a new president who we feel represents us.... however the people are not really the ones putting him in office, yes we may vote for him, but if I gave you a loan for a new house... right? Then I said well I want you to cut your grass a certain way because it makes the house look nicer.. or I want you to NOT park in the driveway because I don't want oil to stain it... would you really say no to that? After I just paid for your loans on this house?
EDIT: and im not just calling you out Achaia I am just using an example I hope I didnt come off like YOUR THE PROBLEM type of thing :D but a lot of ppl feel the way you feel and im just grouping it in ... :D no hard feelings just saying.
I used to agree. I've never voted despite having chances. But I will vote this year. Yes the system is corrupt, but the vote is power. its not much, but it some. tell Russian people that American politics are corrupt.
We should be proud of the vote. People died for it. We should work to make it stronger. What do you win by not voting?
On March 03 2012 00:33 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I remember this one Jon Stewart quote - "To the people that think their vote counts - imagine your vote is a deer tick. Now imagine the presidential election is the continent of Asia."
At any rate, I think doing away with the electoral college and counting votes - we have the technology to accurately count the millions of votes these days - would get a lot more people to vote, because they aren't voting Republican in a blue state or voting Democrat in a red state anymore - they're voting against the whole country which is relatively purple.
This isn't true. There are 76 Democratic House Reps in Red States, and 49 Republicans Reps in Blue States. The "votes-don't-count" mindset is one of the reasons Congressional elections aren't competitive anymore. There are so many factors that give incumbents an advantage over competitors already. In order to overcome these advantages, it takes a supreme effort on the part of the voters, not just the challenger.
With regards to OP, I think this whole school of thought is dangerous and irrational. When I say "school of thought," I mean this: theorizing that votes don't matter and that there is no reason to vote except personal satisfaction. With regards to the value of a single vote, it is inarguable that one single vote cannot sway an election. To say, however, that the process doesn't matter is incorrect, however. Certainly one vote doesn't make a difference, but why should it? The concept behind a majoritarian democracy is "the will of the people," not "the will of one man." It is not one motion that affects change in a nation, but rather it is movement-- a continuous push of the people against an injustice or a string of injustices, a relentless struggle to make a nation better. The greatest tool the people have is their votes-- not just one, but a collection, a mass, a whole.
Examining the second sentiment (that people only vote for personal satisfaction), that depends on the lens through which you cast your vote. If one sees his vote as a means through which he or she can personally change the world, then it certainly is an act of self-satisfaction. If, however, one casts his or her vote to make a statement with his or her comrades, to speak with the authority of a plurality or majority, it matters. Change does not come with one voice. Change comes from a multitude of people. Decisions are made by people who show up, and whether or not a person wants to be part of the voice of change is up to him or her.
Additionally, OP and several other posts regarding the meaninglessness of voting struck me as funny. One post in particular showed such a contradiction to rationality that it seemed almost satiric:
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 have never ever seen someone wish they couldn't vote. The way I've heard it, it's always been the other way around. People without the freedoms to speak as a whole-- Tibetans, Iranians, North Koreans-- have been denied not only the power to vote, but the ability to speak, to gather, to think. Why should you complain about being allowed to vote?
Finally, as a matter of clarification, I want to talk a little bit about lobbying. Lobbyists are not necessarily evil. They aren't inherently greedy pocketbooks with an agenda. Lobbying is speech through petition, and all major organizations in the United States are represented by lobbyists. This doesn't just mean Big Tobacco, the NRA, Big Oil, and every other pitchfork-wielding devil-worshiping company, but Greenpeace, the NAACP, and the NBA. For every perspective that lobbies in Congress with one agenda, there's another that lobbies Congress with the opposite agenda. My point is that all sides are represented. Politicians don't generally take bribes from lobbyists either. That's a big congressional no-no. Getting wined and dined is different, and, in reality, lobbyists generally only lobby hard on politicians who would vote for them anyway. Like the NRA isn't going to lobby a Massachusetts member of congress for looser gun control-- he or she wouldn't waste his or her time. Lobbyists mostly just try to push their agenda to the top of Congress's minds.
On March 03 2012 01:00 bode927 wrote: I think the reason people vote here in the US is so they have a right to complain about it. Because if you don't vote, you have no right to complain.
Yeah this kind of somes up how I feel about the situation. If you don't vote, you don't really have a right to complain about the state of your nation. Voting is a vital part of our government and whether or not you "feel" like your vote matters it does. The voice of the people is their ability to cast their opinion in ballot form to help guide the future of our country.
I do agree with what some people have mentioned earlier that people voting without educating themselves first is a problem because they are not actually representing anything, they are just arbitrarily adding votes to someone or something that they know nothing about. As an American it's our duty to participate in our government. Educate yourself on candidates/issues and make your opinion known with your vote. It may not feel like your vote matters in this massive country full of voters but if everyone gives up the voice then who is making the decisions?
The fact is that the more people who educate themselves on these matters and cast intelligent votes that actually represent how they feel the better off our country will be in the long run. It's voter negligence and apathy that's the biggest threat to our government.
Its funny to me when i read things like this. I am not bashing you Achaia I am just saying that people really think like you do. Its funny because a lot of it educating yourself over the policies and stuff is great i agree you should do that. However I disagree with the fact you feel that if more people did this we would have better presidents or a better way of life. I think that people need to understand that the president is just one big liar and his policies really just mean how many people can I get to vote for me. Maybe he will act and change some things.. hell even Obama changed some things... but look at the state we are in now with the war just ending .. when we were told that was going to end the first year Obama was in office.. we ended up sending 20,000 more troops.. IF THAT WAS IN THE POLICIES I BET YOU OBAMA WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ELECTED. Do you see what I mean? Things are just an illusion so we feel safe and get a new president who we feel represents us.... however the people are not really the ones putting him in office, yes we may vote for him, but if I gave you a loan for a new house... right? Then I said well I want you to cut your grass a certain way because it makes the house look nicer.. or I want you to NOT park in the driveway because I don't want oil to stain it... would you really say no to that? After I just paid for your loans on this house?
EDIT: and im not just calling you out Achaia I am just using an example I hope I didnt come off like YOUR THE PROBLEM type of thing :D but a lot of ppl feel the way you feel and im just grouping it in ... :D no hard feelings just saying.
Not at all mate, no worries. In all honesty I feel like any discussion that brings more understanding to our government in any way only helps because people learn to think and form their own opinions. While I agree with you that presidents often make promises that they can't necessarily deliver on or omit things that may happen (such as your troops example) that doesn't mean that voting is useless.
If you vote simply for the presidency and do nothing else, of course it's going to feel like the election outcome is meaningless. The point of electing a president is putting your support behind someone that you agree with more on a fundamental level. While campaign promises are all fine and dandy, I personally am more interested in the candidates on a personal level. How have they handled themselves in politics previously? Where do they stand on key issues? What moral guidelines do they use to make decisions. If you buy into a candidate simply because of their campaign promises I feel like most people will be disapointed with the outcome. That being said, if you believe in someone and vote for them our job doesn't end there, it's our duty to continue to stay active and show our support or lack thereof for policies as they're being debated and voted on. The example of SOPA is a shining beacon of how we can have an effect on the proceedings of congress. The entire internet was in an outrage at that trash legislation. We can apply that same line of thought to supporting legislation if we are behind it.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the people have power, but unless they collectively wield it and are wise when doing so, there will always be a perception of ineffective government.
You may be a blue voter living deep in a red state and think your vote doesn't matter. However you look at it, your vote is your voice. Even if you cannot be heard, shout.
What most people don't understand, is that *voting for the president is the least important vote of all*. Your single vote is hardly going to affect the whole nation. It's still good to vote, but just remember your vote is a tiny fraction of a fraction of the vote in the presidential election.
The important votes are for your governor, senators, representatives, etc. But *no one ever votes in these*!! Many people say their state is run by idiots, but they never even participated in the election. These local level elections are much, much more easily swayed by your vote. That's not to mention they probably affect your lives more, because they make the local policies.
This guy is mixing stuff so bad. There are basically 2 major ways of building social order: Democracy and Autocracy (this are the extremes, there's many things inbetween shifting more towards one or the other). Now, what the guy in the video proposes --- not voting, not giving a shit --- is a critical point for Democracy, where it ultimately fails and changes into Autocracy (most likely, it's a point where revolution happens). Critical point for Autocracy is the opposite, when people stop being docile, become aware of what's going on and start participating, that's when Autocracy crumbles.
One of the things in Democracy this guy also forgets about is failsafes built in the sytem, namely: separation of powers (usually into executive, judiciary and legislature). This way, none of the branches can gather all of the state's power in a single hand and they all have to compete with each other over citizen's favor to sway the balance of power where it's needed.
I suggest you first read some on the matter before blindly trusting some guy on YouTube who's mixing facts with fiction and generally confusing things (mixing autocracy and democracy way too much there, and this ridiculous obsession with guns, of course the government is controlling the military but it doesn't mean shit as it's a double-edged sword as history has taught us).
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
i just said in an earlier post that faith for humanity was restored. i take that back now.
OP, for what it's worth, democracy isn't the be-all and end-all of government. Even the Greeks, who are generally credited with it's beginnings, thought democracy was one of the "lesser" forms of government, and something better off avoided - for exactly the same reasons you mention.
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
i just said in an earlier post that faith for humanity was restored. i take that back now.
Why? The example illustrated may not be the most palatable but it makes a good point about the shortcomings of the system as it is.
On March 03 2012 02:22 NebuLoSa wrote: wow i never thought i'd hear an american say this. i have to admit i feel like faith in humanity has been restored. gogo!
What a bizarre comment. You're aware that the majority of Americans don't vote right?
Op, everything you said about the political structure of the US is true. On top of that, both parties have gone so far right that often it doesn't matter wether a dem or republican is in the whitehouse. But the two parties DO differ significantly in some areas. Sometimes presidential elections come down to only a few hundred votes in a crucial county in a swing state. The 2000 election is a great example. If the supreme court wouldn't have stopped the recounts in Florida, Al Gore would have won Florida by a handful of votes, thus winning the electoral vote as well as the popular vote. Had gore won, there would have been no second Iraq war. Had there been no invasion of Iraq, thousands upon thousands of people would not have been killed and the US would not have sunk billions of dollars into an illegal war based on fraudulent pretexts and bogus evidence. So, while no single individual's vote will determine an election, a few hundred votes in the right region conceivably could. That, to me, is good enough reason to participate in electoral politics. If enough people vote, get involved, drive their friends to the polls, etc, it can determine presidential elections and thus have a massive impact on the course of history.
On March 03 2012 02:22 NebuLoSa wrote: wow i never thought i'd hear an american say this. i have to admit i feel like faith in humanity has been restored. gogo!
What a bizarre comment. You're aware that the majority of Americans don't vote right?
No. I never said I think it's a good thing not to vote. I certainly think it's a right you should take use of (?)..
What i mean with that post was that I'm really surprised an American (guess i am extremely prejudiced) has got that much insight into how the society as a whole works.
And why would you think my post was about him/her not voting? Read it again. Do you really think anyone would use those words about the action someone performs when not voting? No. Of course not.
OP, for what it's worth, democracy isn't the be-all and end-all of government. Even the Greeks, who are generally credited with it's beginnings, thought democracy was one of the "lesser" forms of government, and something better off avoided - for exactly the same reasons you mention.
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
i just said in an earlier post that faith for humanity was restored. i take that back now.
Why? The example illustrated may not be the most palatable but it makes a good point about the shortcomings of the system as it is.
I might've read this wrong because my english is pretty bad but doesn't he mean that the voice of poor, uneducated etc etc is worth less than the ones of educated and rich people? If he is I'd just to say that's a retarded view on people and society. There are other aspects than those that has to do with education to this. For example -- don't you think that someone who's been living on the streets for a long time, without a job etc. has got some important insight into how some areas of the society works? Do you really think that that person isn't worth as much (because that's really what it means if you say that their vote isn't worth as much) as someone with a higher education? I'm sorry but I just feel sad when I hear people saying things like that. Really sad.
people still vote for the same reason that people still go to church on sundays.
some percentage of people still believe in the institution and what it represents some percentage of people do it because they're paid directly or through benefits some percentage of people do it out of habit and tradition some percentage of people do it because their parents did some percentage of people do it because of peer pressure / propaganda / festival hype a TINY percentage of people do it because they've actually studied, evaluated it, decided doing is better than not
On March 03 2012 02:22 NebuLoSa wrote: wow i never thought i'd hear an american say this. i have to admit i feel like faith in humanity has been restored. gogo!
What a bizarre comment. You're aware that the majority of Americans don't vote right?
No. I never said I think it's a good thing not to vote. I certainly think it's a right you should take use of (?)..
What i mean with that post was that I'm really surprised an American (guess i am extremely prejudiced) has got that much insight into how the society as a whole works.
And why would you think my post was about him/her not voting? Read it again. Do you really think anyone would use those words about the action someone performs when not voting? No. Of course not.
How could anyone take a post seriously from someone who has such blind and unfounded prejudice against Americans?
On March 03 2012 02:22 NebuLoSa wrote: wow i never thought i'd hear an american say this. i have to admit i feel like faith in humanity has been restored. gogo!
What a bizarre comment. You're aware that the majority of Americans don't vote right?
No. I never said I think it's a good thing not to vote. I certainly think it's a right you should take use of (?)..
What i mean with that post was that I'm really surprised an American (guess i am extremely prejudiced) has got that much insight into how the society as a whole works.
And why would you think my post was about him/her not voting? Read it again. Do you really think anyone would use those words about the action someone performs when not voting? No. Of course not.
How could anyone take a post seriously from someone who has such blind and unfounded prejudice against Americans?
That's a question you'll have to answer yourself. But then, on the other hand, is the US so special? Is it worse to have prejudices about America, the greatest nation of the Earth, than other countries and people? Because you surely are completely un-prejucided. Right?
Edit: What I'm telling you is that with your, obviously distorted, view on who you can consider having a serious agenda, you can't listen to anyone. Everyone and their opinion is to be taken with a laugh. Because everyone does have prejudices and there's really no denying in that. The thing is - are prejudices against the US separated from other prejudices just because it's your own nation? I think not, you might. And I can assure you that the prejudices I have aren't exactly unique. And not completely without a basis either.
OP, for what it's worth, democracy isn't the be-all and end-all of government. Even the Greeks, who are generally credited with it's beginnings, thought democracy was one of the "lesser" forms of government, and something better off avoided - for exactly the same reasons you mention.
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
i just said in an earlier post that faith for humanity was restored. i take that back now.
Why? The example illustrated may not be the most palatable but it makes a good point about the shortcomings of the system as it is.
I might've read this wrong because my english is pretty bad but doesn't he mean that the voice of poor, uneducated etc etc is worth less than the ones of educated and rich people? If he is I'd just to say that's a retarded view on people and society. There are other aspects than those that has to do with education to this. For example -- don't you think that someone who's been living on the streets for a long time, without a job etc. has got some important insight into how some areas of the society works? Do you really think that that person isn't worth as much (because that's really what it means if you say that their vote isn't worth as much) as someone with a higher education? I'm sorry but I just feel sad when I hear people saying things like that. Really sad.
I don't think he was intending to suggest that the poor and uneducated shouldn't have a voice; I think he was suggesting that there are people who have vastly different levels of education and knowledge on a subject and thus would make certain people more inclined to make better decisions. The latter is certainly fewer in number than the former (the former being those who are indifferent or uneducated with regard to the matters at hand).
I get your point about how a homeless person would have a different view on how some aspects of society work - but having worked with many homeless people in my time, I would have to argue that most of them (the "bums" he was referring to) don't have a clue about the ramifications of voting, what the issues are, nor do they even give a shit. I'm not trying to belittle and shit on homeless people - I've been arrested advocating for their rights - but the fact of the matter is, I wouldn't want them to be deciding policy for me. The quote we're discussing alludes to the fact that not only would this group of people be apt to make weak decisions, those decisions could also be easily bought with "food" or "promises". It's not hard to coerce the disenfranchised - history is full of examples.
On the flip side, I would like someone with education, a knowledge of how things work in society, empathy, and understanding to put their word in; so long as they're conscious of how that word affects others. That was the idea of the philosopher king - where I think the quoted text was leaning. Some people are in a position to make better decisions - period. Just like a government official hasn't got a clue what it's like to be homeless, a homeless person doesn't have a clue what it's like dealing with Israel and Iran; but I think the former can improve the life of the latter by implementing reasonable, sound decisions. I doubt the latter could make as many good decisions on a wide variety of subjects.
That isn't the same as saying the poor and uneducated have no voice. They do; it's just not an educated voice - and that matters a lot in this discussion.
This guy is mixing stuff so bad. There are basically 2 major ways of building social order: Democracy and Autocracy (this are the extremes, there's many things inbetween shifting more towards one or the other). Now, what the guy in the video proposes --- not voting, not giving a shit --- is a critical point for Democracy, where it ultimately fails and changes into Autocracy (most likely, it's a point where revolution happens). Critical point for Autocracy is the opposite, when people stop being docile, become aware of what's going on and start participating, that's when Autocracy crumbles.
One of the things in Democracy this guy also forgets about is failsafes built in the sytem, namely: separation of powers (usually into executive, judiciary and legislature). This way, none of the branches can gather all of the state's power in a single hand and they all have to compete with each other over citizen's favor to sway the balance of power where it's needed.
I suggest you first read some on the matter before blindly trusting some guy on YouTube who's mixing facts with fiction and generally confusing things (mixing autocracy and democracy way too much there, and this ridiculous obsession with guns, of course the government is controlling the military but it doesn't mean shit as it's a double-edged sword as history has taught us).
no, he is argueing that our "democracy" is nothing but a smokescreen to justify the actions taken by the state.
Our democracy is dead or dying fast and voting will not stop it from dying or bring it back to life.
Small things maybe like local ordinances about like weed decriminalization or someting should be voted on cuz its way more likely your vote will have an impact.
Large presidential-senatorial-gubernatorial (should be governatorial) elections are all decided beforehand, theres no way for any person to know for sure that the results are honest and valid.
On March 03 2012 02:22 NebuLoSa wrote: wow i never thought i'd hear an american say this. i have to admit i feel like faith in humanity has been restored. gogo!
What a bizarre comment. You're aware that the majority of Americans don't vote right?
No. I never said I think it's a good thing not to vote. I certainly think it's a right you should take use of (?)..
What i mean with that post was that I'm really surprised an American (guess i am extremely prejudiced) has got that much insight into how the society as a whole works.
And why would you think my post was about him/her not voting? Read it again. Do you really think anyone would use those words about the action someone performs when not voting? No. Of course not.
How could anyone take a post seriously from someone who has such blind and unfounded prejudice against Americans?
That's a question you'll have to answer yourself. But then, on the other hand, is the US so special? Is it worse to have prejudices about America, the greatest nation of the Earth, than other countries and people? Because you surely are completely un-prejucided. Right?
Edit: What I'm telling you is that with your, obviously distorted, view on who you can consider having a serious agenda, you can't listen to anyone. Everyone and their opinion is to be taken with a laugh. Because everyone does have prejudices and there's really no denying in that. The thing is - are prejudices against the US separated from other prejudices just because it's your own nation? I think not, you might. And I can assure you that the prejudices I have aren't exactly unique. And not completely without a basis either.
He's not saying that your opinion is completely disregarded because it's prejudiced against America per se, he was saying that it should be disregarded because it's so completely and blindly prejudiced in the first place. Which you're agreeing to. And, for the record, I agree with his point. Whenever any kind of anti-European post is posted on TL it's descended upon as usual American, anti-world bullshit, but Europeans can shit on America and we have to take it or we're just blind Americans who can't see the hypocrisy in our own statements. Completely unfair double standard. I fight enough daily to combat extremism and other idiocy in my fellow Arkansans, I shouldn't have to come on to TL and take it from the very Europeans I defend regularly.
Anyway, about the thread, yeah, that's why I don't vote myself. Americans as a whole have become disillusioned, we just have to take that extra step to actually protest. And I don't mean that bullshit Occupy nonsense. I'm talking full on European style protest. If London burned because students got pissy, France had its oil refineries shut down by students, and Germany has a *student union* that regularly protests, we should be able to put together a legitimate protest because our government has been stolen by lobbyists and senators that obviously are more inclined to protect their power than protect our freedoms. Until legit protests start to occur, or something actually changes with our government (trolol, no), voter turnout is going to forever be abysmal, and with it our faith in our own government.
OP, for what it's worth, democracy isn't the be-all and end-all of government. Even the Greeks, who are generally credited with it's beginnings, thought democracy was one of the "lesser" forms of government, and something better off avoided - for exactly the same reasons you mention.
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
i just said in an earlier post that faith for humanity was restored. i take that back now.
Why? The example illustrated may not be the most palatable but it makes a good point about the shortcomings of the system as it is.
I might've read this wrong because my english is pretty bad but doesn't he mean that the voice of poor, uneducated etc etc is worth less than the ones of educated and rich people? If he is I'd just to say that's a retarded view on people and society. There are other aspects than those that has to do with education to this. For example -- don't you think that someone who's been living on the streets for a long time, without a job etc. has got some important insight into how some areas of the society works? Do you really think that that person isn't worth as much (because that's really what it means if you say that their vote isn't worth as much) as someone with a higher education? I'm sorry but I just feel sad when I hear people saying things like that. Really sad.
I don't think he was intending to suggest that the poor and uneducated shouldn't have a voice; I think he was suggesting that there are people who have vastly different levels of education and knowledge on a subject and thus would make certain people more inclined to make better decisions. The latter is certainly fewer in number than the former (the former being those who are indifferent or uneducated with regard to the matters at hand).
I get your point about how a homeless person would have a different view on how some aspects of society work - but having worked with many homeless people in my time, I would have to argue that most of them (the "bums" he was referring to) don't have a clue about the ramifications of voting, what the issues are, nor do they even give a shit. I'm not trying to belittle and shit on homeless people - I've been arrested advocating for their rights - but the fact of the matter is, I wouldn't want them to be deciding policy for me. The quote we're discussing alludes to the fact that not only would this group of people be apt to make weak decisions, those decisions could also be easily bought with "food" or "promises". It's not hard to coerce the disenfranchised - history is full of examples.
On the flip side, I would like someone with education, a knowledge of how things work in society, empathy, and understanding to put their word in; so long as they're conscious of how that word affects others. That was the idea of the philosopher king - where I think the quoted text was leaning. Some people are in a position to make better decisions - period. Just like a government official hasn't got a clue what it's like to be homeless, a homeless person doesn't have a clue what it's like dealing with Israel and Iran; but I think the former can improve the life of the latter by implementing reasonable, sound decisions. I doubt the latter could make as many good decisions on a wide variety of subjects.
That isn't the same as saying the poor and uneducated have no voice. They do; it's just not an educated voice - and that matters a lot in this discussion.
I see what you're saying and you're saying alot of smart things. However I wonder, isn't there a dilemma here when you consider people educated or uneducated - i mean, it's not always that black and white.
For example, why would a mathematician like the future me, lol, have any better insight in what is right for a society and what is not than someone who haven't received higher education. I mean, sure, there are certain fields that are more important than others being most social sciences (i think this is the right word) but there are also alot (definitely more than the aforementioned) of fields that certainly does not make someone 'better' at politics. So I wonder if you with this view, consider people uneducated or educated or if you consider for example an engineer or a physicist or whatever, uneducated? Would be interesting to know.
And also, I'm sure alot of homeless people and people with no education don't give a shit about politics but I've seen the same in the "higher levels" too - people with fortunes not caring a single bit because they have almost everything they want. And I think it'd be really hard and weird to consider these, obviously educated, people as knowing more about politics than someone who has not received higher education. Basically, what im trying to say is that while you might be correct in the fact that people with more interest and knowledge might receive a "louder voice" , education really isn't the way to measurize this. I hope you understand what I mean.
On March 03 2012 02:22 NebuLoSa wrote: wow i never thought i'd hear an american say this. i have to admit i feel like faith in humanity has been restored. gogo!
What a bizarre comment. You're aware that the majority of Americans don't vote right?
No. I never said I think it's a good thing not to vote. I certainly think it's a right you should take use of (?)..
What i mean with that post was that I'm really surprised an American (guess i am extremely prejudiced) has got that much insight into how the society as a whole works.
And why would you think my post was about him/her not voting? Read it again. Do you really think anyone would use those words about the action someone performs when not voting? No. Of course not.
How could anyone take a post seriously from someone who has such blind and unfounded prejudice against Americans?
That's a question you'll have to answer yourself. But then, on the other hand, is the US so special? Is it worse to have prejudices about America, the greatest nation of the Earth, than other countries and people? Because you surely are completely un-prejucided. Right?
Edit: What I'm telling you is that with your, obviously distorted, view on who you can consider having a serious agenda, you can't listen to anyone. Everyone and their opinion is to be taken with a laugh. Because everyone does have prejudices and there's really no denying in that. The thing is - are prejudices against the US separated from other prejudices just because it's your own nation? I think not, you might. And I can assure you that the prejudices I have aren't exactly unique. And not completely without a basis either.
He's not saying that your opinion is completely disregarded because it's prejudiced against America per se, he was saying that it should be disregarded because it's so completely and blindly prejudiced in the first place. Which you're agreeing to. And, for the record, I agree with his point. Whenever any kind of anti-European post is posted on TL it's descended upon as usual American, anti-world bullshit, but Europeans can shit on America and we have to take it or we're just blind Americans who can't see the hypocrisy in our own statements. Completely unfair double standard. I fight enough daily to combat extremism and other idiocy in my fellow Arkansans, I shouldn't have to come on to TL and take it from the very Europeans I defend regularly.
I'm sorry if i mightve sounded anti-American, it wasn't my intention. It's just very easy to get that view on americans in general even if i know it is, for the most part, completely untrue.
By the way I can agree with the double standard youre mentioning and I don't exactly know what it's based upon.
However, I think it's important to point out that it is in fact impossible to avoid any kind of prejudicisms. That being said I dont think prejudicism is something good.
The electoral college is pretty broken, yeah? It's no longer even representative of populations for states.
And yes, politicians are generally bought in this country. I'm adamant about voting on the city/county/state level, but voting at the national level is just the tipping of my proverbial hat to an ideal we have not only never seen realized but have (for the most part) become pretty comfortable with never realizing.
I, for one, will be writing in Song Byung Goo. He can't be elected to the presidency because he's Korean (obviously), but his shuttle micro is fucking fantastic.
OP, for what it's worth, democracy isn't the be-all and end-all of government. Even the Greeks, who are generally credited with it's beginnings, thought democracy was one of the "lesser" forms of government, and something better off avoided - for exactly the same reasons you mention.
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
i just said in an earlier post that faith for humanity was restored. i take that back now.
Why? The example illustrated may not be the most palatable but it makes a good point about the shortcomings of the system as it is.
I might've read this wrong because my english is pretty bad but doesn't he mean that the voice of poor, uneducated etc etc is worth less than the ones of educated and rich people? If he is I'd just to say that's a retarded view on people and society. There are other aspects than those that has to do with education to this. For example -- don't you think that someone who's been living on the streets for a long time, without a job etc. has got some important insight into how some areas of the society works? Do you really think that that person isn't worth as much (because that's really what it means if you say that their vote isn't worth as much) as someone with a higher education? I'm sorry but I just feel sad when I hear people saying things like that. Really sad.
I don't think he was intending to suggest that the poor and uneducated shouldn't have a voice; I think he was suggesting that there are people who have vastly different levels of education and knowledge on a subject and thus would make certain people more inclined to make better decisions. The latter is certainly fewer in number than the former (the former being those who are indifferent or uneducated with regard to the matters at hand).
I get your point about how a homeless person would have a different view on how some aspects of society work - but having worked with many homeless people in my time, I would have to argue that most of them (the "bums" he was referring to) don't have a clue about the ramifications of voting, what the issues are, nor do they even give a shit. I'm not trying to belittle and shit on homeless people - I've been arrested advocating for their rights - but the fact of the matter is, I wouldn't want them to be deciding policy for me. The quote we're discussing alludes to the fact that not only would this group of people be apt to make weak decisions, those decisions could also be easily bought with "food" or "promises". It's not hard to coerce the disenfranchised - history is full of examples.
On the flip side, I would like someone with education, a knowledge of how things work in society, empathy, and understanding to put their word in; so long as they're conscious of how that word affects others. That was the idea of the philosopher king - where I think the quoted text was leaning. Some people are in a position to make better decisions - period. Just like a government official hasn't got a clue what it's like to be homeless, a homeless person doesn't have a clue what it's like dealing with Israel and Iran; but I think the former can improve the life of the latter by implementing reasonable, sound decisions. I doubt the latter could make as many good decisions on a wide variety of subjects.
That isn't the same as saying the poor and uneducated have no voice. They do; it's just not an educated voice - and that matters a lot in this discussion.
I see what you're saying and you're saying alot of smart things. However I wonder, isn't there a dilemma here when you consider people educated or uneducated - i mean, it's not always that black and white.
For example, why would a mathematician like the future me, lol, have any better insight in what is right for a society and what is not than someone who haven't received higher education. I mean, sure, there are certain fields that are more important than others being most social sciences (i think this is the right word) but there are also alot (definitely more than the aforementioned) of fields that certainly does not make someone 'better' at politics. So I wonder if you with this view, consider people uneducated or educated or if you consider for example an engineer or a physicist or whatever, uneducated? Would be interesting to know.
And also, I'm sure alot of homeless people and people with no education don't give a shit about politics but I've seen the same in the "higher levels" too - people with fortunes not caring a single bit because they have almost everything they want. And I think it'd be really hard and weird to consider these, obviously educated, people as knowing more about politics than someone who has not received higher education. Basically, what im trying to say is that while you might be correct in the fact that people with more interest and knowledge might receive a "louder voice" , education really isn't the way to measurize this. I hope you understand what I mean.
Keep in mind that the quote we're discussing is not my quote. I can't really speak for the person who wrote that with regard to what they feel is "educated" or "uneducated". I just feel that it raises legitimate questions. You're absolutely right, there is a dilemma regarding what those two words mean. I suppose one could argue that the best person for the job is the one who is most educated in whatever field is in question. For example, a physicist may not be the best person to direct social policy - perhaps they're better suited toward something else. A sociologist might not be suited for creating policy on military spending - maybe they're best off doing something else. Thing is, now I'm just talking about specific positions in government, which is kind of off topic.
I think most people would agree that an education usually includes subjects or a community that fosters an awareness in the world around a person. A mathematician may focus on math, but surely has taken classes (or been exposed to events) that create some degree of insight into more than just math. I went to school for biochemistry, I know that I got a lot more than just biochemistry from my education; I assume (perhaps wrongly) that this is the case for most people. Part of an education is to see more than what's right in front of you, if that makes sense.
You're also right about some educated people not caring about politics. Some people just don't care. Some people want more than what they have, and may make "bad" decisions for the same sorts of bribes an uneducated person would.
Note that in my post above when I speak of someone who I would like to have directing policy, or voting, I didn't specify only education; I listed a number of qualities that I think are important to make an informed decision - education is one of them, and to me, a very important one; but it's not the sole factor in determining whether or not someone can make ideal political decisions.
You make good points, I can't even say I disagree with them - it's a bit of a slippery slope when you try to define stuff like this. However, like I said, I didn't write the post we're discussing, I just think it raises some legitimate points and shouldn't be viewed as an entirely negative statement. I don't think it was intended to be negative in that way at all.
On March 03 2012 03:35 synapse wrote: Sadly, it's the people that think they know something about politics but actually don't that are most eager to vote :T
By, "but actually don't" you obviously mean "but whose opinion differs from my own because only my opinion is the correct one", correct ?
The OP's issue has nothing to do with America, it has to do with ANY democracy, including a fictional direct democracy where every decision is by referendum. The chance that Your vote will break a tie (or make a tie) is incredibly small.
The other problems with democracy (people are stupid, majority oppresion of minority) are the reasons no modern government is truly democratic.
However some of the OP's complaints are more general complaints about living in society.
ie the people in power in my society want X, I don't want X.
The problem is unless you are the mass mind controlling dictator or an exile on a desert island or one of a million groupthink clones, you will have to live with other people affecting your life with things you disagree with.
In a democratic system, you have an option for your desires to be part of how society works.. If you don't want to use it, then you are fine with society.
I vote because it's better than not voting. For five minutes of my time (I vote by mail) I can claim to have participated in the polotics of my country. And what's better than pretending that I'm contributing to some thing some where. IOW: I know it doesn't matter but it makes me feel good
This is the moment where the amount of stupidity in this thread reached a critical mass. Now anything after this will be swallowed up by the mass of stupidity in it, and nothing can fight against it. Think about trying to kill like 10 fully upgraded colossi with ground units. Just isn't going to happen.
I wanted to even give the video a chance, then lol'd out when he said "I'm not going to give you facts." Rofl. I wonder why. Maybe because you are a fucking idiot?
On March 02 2012 09:08 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: The government is corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The corporations are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The candidates are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The voters are often stupid, and the same can apply to a good bit of the above. That is why I do not vote. I simply have lost hope in my system.
And yet the source of a lot of those problems are simply people not bothering to vote against them. It's called a cycle
I can't vote against corporations or the voters. There are no candidates who strike me as actually honest people and not as a politician.
On March 02 2012 09:08 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: The government is corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The corporations are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The candidates are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The voters are often stupid, and the same can apply to a good bit of the above. That is why I do not vote. I simply have lost hope in my system.
And yet the source of a lot of those problems are simply people not bothering to vote against them. It's called a cycle
I can't vote against corporations or the voters. There are no candidates who strike me as actually honest people and not as a politician.
There's no such thing as an "honest person". Everyone lies. If you say you don't, you are lying. This is especially true when you have power (power corrupts?)
When there's no honest person to choose, choose from the pool who strikes you as most honest. If you live in a state with open primaries this is even better since instead of choosing from two candidates from the two major political parties, you can choose from a lot more. Five major ones for this election (four GOP's + Obama), and six from 2008 (four GOP's + Obama + Clinton).
If you don't... well, you still have a choice, or vote for the independents/third parties. There's a lot of people out there too. And you still have congressmen and state governments to pick.
What the fuck are you talking about? The fact that voting rarely has any effect isn't QQ, it's a statement of fact.
No, it isn't, it's childish QQ. It's very simple. Extend your statement of fact to every voter, individually, and there is no voting. No voting would mean the democratic system wouldn't be able to function. So, it's a statement of very simple fact that voting does have an effect.
What the fuck are you talking about? The fact that voting rarely has any effect isn't QQ, it's a statement of fact.
How in the world did you decide that I'm support an "ideology out of power", when I don't identify with any political party? What "ideology" did you somehow conclude that I support?
Your entire argument is the QQ of an ideology out of power. What ideology in particular doesn't really matter, it could be any ideology without mainstream support. Ideology is also not a synonym for political party, sorry.
Did you confuse me for someone else? When did I ever complain that the system was unfair?
No one in power cares about the opinions of the populace, beyond the ability of those opinions to threaten their power,
Although that part was more a general observation, not specifically aimed at you.
the entire reason the electoral college system was set up was for the elite to make sure that the lower class citizens would be able to change nothing. the more you know.
Actually, that would be the reason for the electoral franchise only being extended to property owners during early America.
What you were responding to is accurate. Smaller states were highly concerned that national affairs, particularly tariffs, would be dominated by larger, more populous states, which would enact national policies and regulations to the benefit of those large states at the expense of the smaller states. This is why each state has 2 senators, and why the president is elected by the electoral college and indirect popular vote, not direct popular vote.
If he [Lincoln] were president today...
Actually the anti-Republican press of the day focused on all those things, and in a far more coarse and brutal fashion than any cable news commentator would in the present. The man was regularly called a baboon, among other things.
On March 03 2012 03:35 synapse wrote: Sadly, it's the people that think they know something about politics but actually don't that are most eager to vote :T
By, "but actually don't" you obviously mean "but whose opinion differs from my own because only my opinion is the correct one", correct ?
Haha, one day you will learn that some opinions are wrong. Them being wrong != him being right. Can you please take a step back and see that maybe you just need to think a little longer?
Actually the anti-Republican press of the day focused on all those things, and in a far more coarse and brutal fashion than any cable news commentator would in the present. The man was regularly called a baboon, among other things.
I thought it was "gorilla", but it was a long time ago I read about that so I may be mistaken.
But I don't think anyone gave him crap about the theater bit after the civil war was over.
On March 02 2012 09:08 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: The government is corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The corporations are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The candidates are corrupt, evil and duplicitous. The voters are often stupid, and the same can apply to a good bit of the above. That is why I do not vote. I simply have lost hope in my system.
And yet the source of a lot of those problems are simply people not bothering to vote against them. It's called a cycle
I can't vote against corporations or the voters. There are no candidates who strike me as actually honest people and not as a politician.
Thats just because you're only looking at Democrats or Republicans. And you can always try to run yourself you knew. There are a lot of people in this thread who share a similar opinion to yours, that should tell you something.
And lets please stop this politician auto=bad person. Contrary to popular belief, some of the guys in our governements are actually trying to help people
Oh yeah voting is completely pointless. The majority of americans realize that voting is stupid which is why no cares at least I dont. Just think about the basic idea of what your doing. Your voting for certain people who are then free to basically do anything they want until their term runs out. They could support things you dont want or not support what you did want. You have zero influence whether the people you wanted made it or not. I think the government has grown out of control over the decades and just represents them not the people anymore. Nothing they do works or makes any sense.
On March 03 2012 06:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:No, it isn't, it's childish QQ. It's very simple. Extend your statement of fact to every voter, individually, and there is no voting. No voting would mean the democratic system wouldn't be able to function. So, it's a statement of very simple fact that voting does have an effect.
Again with the logical fallacies. Whether a decision is +EV for you or not does not mean that everyone else would make the same decision, even if it would be +EV for them.
Consider the following parallel. Let's say that the stock price for Company X is currently $90, but an objective calculation of its value suggests that it is $100. That means that it is +EV to buy the stock. Yes, if every single investor did the same thing as you, then the stock price will rise, and it will not be +EV to buy it anymore. So what? We're not talking about the hypothetical decisions of everyone else here, we're only talking about yours. There's tons of reasons why other people might not sell, starting with the fact that most people have no idea how to calculate the value of a company. It's ridiculous to assume "if everyone did the same thing"; it's a bullshit "what if".
On March 03 2012 06:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:Your entire argument is the QQ of an ideology out of power. What ideology in particular doesn't really matter, it could be any ideology without mainstream support. Ideology is also not a synonym for political party, sorry.
No, it isn't. My statement is the objective science of academics, that has been well-established for decades. You're assuming that simply because I pointed out something that it means I have a problem with it. False dichotomy.
Imagine a Starcraft commentator pointed out that Scouts are useless when someone builds them. Is he QQing about it? No, he's just saying building Scouts are usually a bad idea, not asking for a balance patch.
On March 02 2012 22:20 sunprince wrote: Personally, I find it disgusting when people cast a worthless vote and congratulate themselves for doing something meaningful.
Revolutions don't happen because people throw away their votes. Revolutions happen when people actually, y'know, revolt. Casting worthless votes is just a BS way to feel good about yourself without actually making sacrifices to do something real.
No one in power cares about the opinions of the populace, beyond the ability of those opinions to threaten their power, and in the American electoral system, third parties are incapable of threatening them. Thus, expressing your opinion in this manner is worth nothing. You're far too optimstic in believing that showing the opinions of the population will achieve anything meaningful. I know this sounds depressing, but such is the cold, hard reality of politics.
You sound as ignorant as someone who's only taken elementary school politics classes, and as pessimistic as a conspiracy theorist. You're not backing up any of what you say by facts or anything else, you're just outright denying things, that doesn't get you anywhere for a position of credibility.
On March 03 2012 08:22 Xapti wrote:You sound as ignorant as someone who's only taken elementary school politics classes, and as pessimistic as a conspiracy theorist.
I actually have a degree in political science from a top 10 public university in the US, thanks.
On March 03 2012 08:22 Xapti wrote:You're not backing up any of what you say by facts or anything else, you're just outright denying things, that doesn't get you anywhere for a position of credibility.
In a forum thread, it makes more sense to explain thing in a more accessible way for most people, and provide links as sources for people who care to read more. Try actually reading the links I've repeatedly posted which provide more detailed, academic support as well as sources for my positions. You can also use Google to quickly find that there is no academic support for the notion that the benefits of voting usually outweigh the costs, but plenty of support for the opposite from the fields of political science, economics, and pyschology.
On March 03 2012 08:29 sunprince wrote:Try actually reading the links I've repeatedly posted which provide more detailed, academic support as well as sources for my positions. You can also use Google to quickly find that there is no academic support for the notion that the benefits of voting usually outweigh the costs, but plenty of support for the opposite from the fields of political science, economics, and pyschology.
I already read some of that, You mention stuff like the paradox of voting as if it's an absolute truth that applies to everyone in all circumstances or that everyone (or majority of people) actually agrees on it applying to the real world..
For one, it's generally looking at the factor of who wins, not the bigger picture, such as expressing popular opinion, or obtaining a vote threshold (5%) for a certain party to give them more funding.
Secondly, it's assuming egoist/selfish human behavior, to which voting is obviously not designed for. Voting is an inherently selfless thing, so it's no surprise to have a paradox involving a bunch of selfish people voting. Not everyone is a selfish person just caring about their own actions in tunnel vision, instead of looking at the wider picture of their actions.
Rational choice theory does not address the role of an individual's sense of morals or ethics in decision-making, and is not something that is exclusively used by everyone to gauge outcomes or behaviors accurately.
The first Psychology Today article mentioned a fallacy of "magical thinking" which I can only assume they meant "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", since I haven't heard of called "magical thinking". The argument made in the article was not actually a logical fallacy, but that doesn't mean it's not somewhat incorrect. If everyone acted the in the way where they don't think their vote would make a significant difference they wouldn't vote, it doesn't necessarily mean no one would vote, but there would have to be very small voter amounts and/or a close race for more than just a small number of people to vote. While more than zero people would be voting, it would still be a very insignificant amount of people, such as maybe 10% of the population or less.
The issue is that if people were voting for who they wanted, there would be an additional 9 fold increase in opinion, completely crashing the original 10%'s opinion. It's about acting as a collective — humans are not solitary, completely selfish, beings; We're gregarious beings who use teamwork to achieve goals, that's the whole point of elections, and it's why getting everyone to vote is important. All sorts of great feats were achieved through teamwork throught human civilization
On March 03 2012 08:51 Xapti wrote:I already read some of that, You mention stuff like the paradox of voting as if it's an absolute truth that applies to everyone in all circumstances or that everyone (or majority of people) actually agrees on it applying to the real world.
1. The irrationality of voting is a tendency, not an absolute. As I've stated multiple times in this thread, it is sometimes rational to vote (typically when the electorate is small and/or the vote is close), but usually not.
2. Whether people agree on it applying or not is irrelevant. Most Americans don't believe in evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. It just means that a lot of people suffer from cognitive biases and aren't properly informed, and that applies to the rationality of voting as well.
On March 03 2012 08:51 Xapti wrote:For one, it's generally looking at the factor of who wins, not the bigger picture, such as expressing popular opinion, or obtaining a vote threshold (5%) for a certain party to give them more funding.
No, the bigger picture is who wins. Expressing popular opinion or obtaining more funding for a party that will never matter are tiny details.
On March 03 2012 08:51 Xapti wrote:Secondly, it's assuming egoist/selfish human behavior, to which voting is obviously not designed for. Voting is an inherently selfless thing, so it's no surprise to have a paradox involving a bunch of selfish people voting. Not everyone is a selfish person just caring about their own actions in tunnel vision, instead of looking at the wider picture of their actions.
Since when was voting inherently selfless? People vote for selfish reasons all the time! Why do you think that people are always pushing to cut taxes and increase spending while creating massive deficits? Because they're "looking at the wider picture of their actions"?
On March 03 2012 08:51 Xapti wrote:Rational choice theory does not address the role of an individual's sense of morals or ethics in decision-making, and is not something that is exclusively used by everyone to gauge outcomes or behaviors accurately.
When did I ever claim that rational choice theory is used by everyone to determine their behavior? I've repeatedly asserted that most people act irrationally, and that's why they vote! Stating the fact that voting is -EV doesn't at all mean that people won't vote, it just means that it's not rationally beneficial for most people to do so.
On March 02 2012 22:20 sunprince wrote: Personally, I find it disgusting when people cast a worthless vote and congratulate themselves for doing something meaningful.
Revolutions don't happen because people throw away their votes. Revolutions happen when people actually, y'know, revolt. Casting worthless votes is just a BS way to feel good about yourself without actually making sacrifices to do something real.
No one in power cares about the opinions of the populace, beyond the ability of those opinions to threaten their power, and in the American electoral system, third parties are incapable of threatening them. Thus, expressing your opinion in this manner is worth nothing. You're far too optimstic in believing that showing the opinions of the population will achieve anything meaningful. I know this sounds depressing, but such is the cold, hard reality of politics.
You sound as ignorant as someone who's only taken elementary school politics classes, and as pessimistic as a conspiracy theorist. You're not backing up any of what you say by facts or anything else, you're just outright denying things, that doesn't get you anywhere for a position of credibility.
i thought the same thing, and thats why i dont engage with him as well.
On March 03 2012 08:29 sunprince wrote: You can also use Google to quickly find that there is no academic support for the notion that the benefits of voting usually outweigh the costs, but plenty of support for the opposite from the fields of political science, economics, and pyschology.
People vote because they find it worth their time. They are aware that their single vote isn't likely to make any difference. People in general aren't complete and utter morons.
Since the majority still votes, voluntarily, the benefits clearly outweight the costs - for that majority.
If you don't understand why people vote - then you just don't understand the real benefit people get from voting.
Mainly - the ability to root for their team, and feeling free to complain about the other team, without making up lies and getting a bad conscience for it.
How often have you heard phrases like 'I'd vote for him' or 'not my fault, I didn't vote for him' etc ... it's quite simply a way to feel that you have done your part, and are free to complain about everything that happens (because you did your part - voting).
If lying doesn't bother you, there's no reason to vote. Lying bothers a lot of people, so they vote. I would be willing to bet that people lie about having voted, but voters don't lie much about not having voted (I guess they might lie about who they voted for ... but not the fact that they voted).
On March 03 2012 09:00 sunprince wrote: When did I ever claim that rational choice theory is used by everyone to determine their behavior? I've repeatedly asserted that most people act irrationally, and that's why they vote! Stating the fact that voting is -EV doesn't at all mean that people won't vote, it just means that it's not rationally beneficial for most people to do so.
It's rational to vote if it makes you feel better about yourself, and you have a reason for believing that voting will make you feel better about yourself.
People take the idea of rationality too far, only counting the tangibles but not seeing the whole picture.
On March 03 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:People vote because they find it worth their time. They are aware that their single vote isn't likely to make any difference. People in general aren't complete and utter morons.
People find it worth their time because they have a poor grasp of probability. People in general aren't complete morons, but are in general prone to cognitive biases and are poorly informed. Again, if you wish to dispute this, consider that a majority of Americans do not believe in evolution.
On March 03 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:Since the majority still votes, voluntarily, the benefits clearly outweight the costs - for that majority.
No, tht just means that the benefits outweigh the costs according to their flawed subconscious calculations. A ton of people also buy lottery tickets or make poor investments; that doesn't mean that their choices are +EV. Argumentum ad populum here.
On March 03 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:If you don't understand why people vote - then you just don't understand the real benefit people get from voting.
I do understand why people vote. I'm just stating that it's usually -EV to do so. I similarly understand why some noob Starcraft players will 1-base turtle and never expand, I'm just stating it's usually -EV to do so.
On March 03 2012 09:08 aebriol wrote:It's rational to vote if it makes you feel better about yourself, and you have a reason for believing that voting will make you feel better about yourself.
As previously noted, people are uninformed. Voting only makes people feel better about themselves, because they think their vote matters (and why not, since they're repeatedly given the feel-good BS that their vote matters from all directions).
That still doesn't make it rational in the strictest sense, since they're only acting that way because they don't know better or refuse to acknowledge the truth. If anything, that just makes it rational irrationality.
Its a disgrace that you dont use your voting rights in USA, did you ever think about how many lives have been sacrified for the right of voting? Seriously a disgrace and disrespectful!
I'll put it very simple, if you dont vote then you dont have a opinion about politics/society. So in fact 45% of USA dont have a opinion when it comes to who is gonna rule the country and that is actually very scary. Again, as long as you dont vote, you dont have a opinion about politics/society.
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. Seriously? What happened to separation of church and state? The rest of the Republican candidates are completely repulsive to me, and Obama is just meh.
On top of that you have the fact that our nation is a true idiocracy. Just look at our television ads and journalism. Advertisement is utter crap, designed around subliminal messaging to a sleeping populace. Journalism is even worse: pure sensationalism, or in the case of FOX, fabrication. But the fact is, the nation has tons of people that love watching FOX and believe all the drivel that comes out of the reporters' mouths. When you realize that the average IQ is 100, that means that fully 50% of our nation is below that. And these people are allowed to vote.
Even more worrisome is I'm not sure if their votes even affect the outcome of the system at all. The electoral college system results in a binary winner-takes-all system in each state, which means that any intelligent people who live in West Virginia might as well not exist for purposes of this election.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I really just don't care any more. America is fucked up, and I hope it goes down in flames.
edit2: Hmm... proving Republicans are stupid. The rest of the article is interesting, but you can just skip to the end if you want. http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm
Ron Paul has always been a staunch social conservation. He didn't become a creationist/anti-abortionist to get votes, it has just never gotten so much attention because he has never done so well.
Imo the point of voting is to be selfish. When you punch that ballot or tap that screen the result should be a direct reflection of your interests. This is important because even if something doesnt pass or somebody doesnt get elected then the vote can still be considered one of the largest and most comprehensive polls on the subject.
Im not saying the system is as good as it could be but even if this benefit is extremely small, there is literally no drawback to dissuade me.
On March 03 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:People vote because they find it worth their time. They are aware that their single vote isn't likely to make any difference. People in general aren't complete and utter morons.
People find it worth their time because they have a poor grasp of probability. People in general aren't complete morons, but are in general prone to cognitive biases and are poorly informed. Again, if you wish to dispute this, consider that a majority of Americans do not believe in evolution.
On March 03 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:Since the majority still votes, voluntarily, the benefits clearly outweight the costs - for that majority.
No, tht just means that the benefits outweigh the costs according to their flawed subconscious calculations. A ton of people also buy lottery tickets or make poor investments; that doesn't mean that their choices are +EV. Argumentum ad populum here.
On March 03 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:If you don't understand why people vote - then you just don't understand the real benefit people get from voting.
I do understand why people vote. I'm just stating that it's usually -EV to do so. I similarly understand why some noob Starcraft players will 1-base turtle and never expand, I'm just stating it's usually -EV to do so.
I don't want to mess too much with the quote tags so ...
1) I don't disagree that people in general have a poor grasp of probability, but you see the same pattern in all western democracies, so there's nothing unique about the US when it comes to this. Since I live in Norway, and here people aren't very religious, we do believe in evolution, and people in general are at least decently educated (and the higher the education, the more likely you are to vote)....
I dispute your idea that it's because people don't 'understand' that their single vote doesn't matter that they vote.
I believe that people vote for other reasons than believing their single vote counts.
And I believe that reason is being able to discuss politics, economics, the world, how things are going, etc etc etc, without having to lie, because you 'did your part'.
2) You are stating that people have negative expected value from voting.
I dispute that.
I would say that if lying bothers you, then voting enables you for the near future (1 - 4 years) to discuss what is going on, while knowing you 'did your part'. And it makes you feel good about having done it.
I have always voted. I know why I vote. And it's not because I am stupid enough to believe my vote matters. It's because I discuss politics quite often, seriously or not, I don't like lying for no reason, and I like being able to say I voted.
My expected value from voting is being able to feel better about my arguments when discussing politics for the near future, instead of meeting the irrefutable argument 'well you didn't vote, so you chose to not let your opinion matter, shut the f up'.
Again - if lying doesn't bother you, then I agree. However, lying bothers a lot of people. And the more educated people are, the more likely the are in my opinion to casually discuss politics, the economy, etc, and the more real benefit there is from having voted. Which is why those people are more likely to vote.
3) You compare it to playing the lottery.
It's worth making a note of the fact that the minority regulary plays the lottery, while the majority votes, that there is an inverse relationship between who is more likely to vote (better educated, richer, part of the majority group), than those that play the lottery (poorer, less educated, minorities).
That's because the first group are more likely to weight the benefits over time and the likelyhood of those occuring, while the second group is more likely to not considering the probability, and chose a short term benefit (I can afford it right now, and I can afford it right now next week, and the week after, and the week after - not taking into account the total cost), while voting is a little cost right now, for an expected value over time that is returned over a longer period of time (until the next election).
On March 03 2012 09:00 sunprince wrote: When did I ever claim that rational choice theory is used by everyone to determine their behavior? I've repeatedly asserted that most people act irrationally, and that's why they vote! Stating the fact that voting is -EV doesn't at all mean that people won't vote, it just means that it's not rationally beneficial for most people to do so.
It's rational to vote if it makes you feel better about yourself, and you have a reason for believing that voting will make you feel better about yourself.
People take the idea of rationality too far, only counting the tangibles but not seeing the whole picture.
Rational and rational, rational choice theory isn't concerned about your feelings in the way you prescribe them. That is, however, one of the biggest reasons people actually vote - to feel that they are contributing to society and being a "good person".
As far as "ONLY WINNING MATTERS!!" goes, that's bullshit. There's almost always support voting for one of the smaller parties from one of the bigger parties out of the two blocks here in Sweden in every election, that is, votes that would be cast on the biggest party (or one of the bigger smaller parties) are placed on the smallest one to make sure that it stays in parliament (and receives funding). Biggest motivator here is that people feel that the other party's views are an important part of Swedish politics, for balance's sake. Obviously this doesn't, and can't, apply to American politics. But then I've never understood why such an undemocratic system is still deemed legitimate by the people. Maybe the answer is the insanely strong patriotism/nationalism that transpires American society, maybe it's something else. I'm really curious though, haven't gotten a good explanation from any source so far.
On March 03 2012 09:19 MyHero[bNy] wrote: Its a disgrace that you dont use your voting rights in USA, did you ever think about how many lives have been sacrified for the right of voting? Seriously a disgrace and disrespectful!
I'll put it very simple, if you dont vote then you dont have a opinion.
That is rhetoric.
Nobody has denied the main points of my OP. Instead, it has been totally ignored, and instead I've gotten the same emotional message over and over: If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter. Soldiers died so sniveling little shits like you could have that right.
Whether or not I vote is not the issue. The issue is, that no matter who I vote for, no matter who wins, money is the bottom line. Period. It doesn't matter if I vote blank, GOP, or independent. It doesn't matter who wins. Powerful, wealthy people will always be the ones deciding who gets what. It is a separate issue from voting.
On March 03 2012 09:00 sunprince wrote: When did I ever claim that rational choice theory is used by everyone to determine their behavior? I've repeatedly asserted that most people act irrationally, and that's why they vote! Stating the fact that voting is -EV doesn't at all mean that people won't vote, it just means that it's not rationally beneficial for most people to do so.
It's rational to vote if it makes you feel better about yourself, and you have a reason for believing that voting will make you feel better about yourself.
People take the idea of rationality too far, only counting the tangibles but not seeing the whole picture.
Rational and rational, rational choice theory isn't concerned about your feelings in the way you prescribe them. That is, however, one of the biggest reasons people actually vote - to feel that they are contributing to society and being a "good person".
Well, I consider it rational to do something with my time that doesn't cost me any money, and I can expect makes me feel overall better than if I didn't.
Voting is one of those things.
I can understand it being irrational if it means you have to take time off work, or something similar, but for most people, it's simply a decision to spend a little time doing that, instead of some other non-revenue earning activity, and chosing to vote, instead of watching TV, reading a book, whatever, is chosen because you can expect it to make you feel better than spending the same time on whatever other activity you would have spent it on.
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:1) I don't disagree that people in general have a poor grasp of probability, but you see the same pattern in all western democracies, so there's nothing unique about the US when it comes to this. Since I live in Norway, and here people aren't very religious, we do believe in evolution, and people in general are at least decently educated (and the higher the education, the more likely you are to vote)....
In Norway, you have a multiparty system and no electoral college system. Because of that, it actually makes a lot more sense to vote in Norway than it does in the United States.
In other words, voting in Norway has far better expected value than voting in the United States.
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:I would say that if lying bothers you, then voting enables you for the near future (1 - 4 years) to discuss what is going on, while knowing you 'did your part'. And it makes you feel good about having done it.
Except that you didn't really "do your part", except to people who don't know any better.
It's not about lying. You're assuming that "you didn't vote so shut the fuck up" is an irrefutable argument, but it's just a logical fallacy. If anyone says that, then I'm not going to bother conversing with them, because they're morons.
I vote in elections where my vote actually has a reasonable impact (e.g. close local elections, state referendums, etc.), but I'm not afraid to admit that I don't bother voting when it doesn't matter (voting for President is pointless because I live in a safe state rather than a swing state).
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:It's worth making a note of the fact that the minority regulary plays the lottery, while the majority votes, that there is an inverse relationship between who is more likely to vote (better educated, richer, part of the majority group), than those that play the lottery (poorer, less educated, minorities).
I gave playing lottery as a single example of irrationality, but there's many more: people make poor investment decisions of all sorts, people gamble in casino games that are always -EV, people buy Apple products when they're overpriced compared to similar-quality devices, products. The only point I'm making here, is that while people aren't generally morons, they also don't always make the best decisions, due to cognitive biases and poor information.
I implore you all to watch the South Park episode "Douche and Turd" (season 8 I think). I found it to be a hilarious and apt reflection on voting in political elections.
Most often the choices you have are between a douche and a turd. Politicians aren't like most of us. They have gotten to where they are because they are adept at manipulating groups of people to further their own goals. They don't need to be educated, but they are very skilled at using tactics that give the illusion of education or reason. They are good at convincing people that they share your ideals, but when elected they will use their power to do what is best for them or what they think is best for the country. When staying in power is the best for them, they will throw out "popular" policies that would garner support among people, but eventually might not be the best choice to make in the end.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't vote. The political system may be disgusting, but you should consider yourself fortunate that you live in a democratic country where you are able to have a say in things, no matter how small. If you do not like things the way they are, you can vote in someone who you think can make things better. Not doing so will not solve the problem. Also, aside from voting, there are a lot of other things you can do to get involve in the political process, from protesting to running for office yourself. Even trying to convince your group of friends that he is wrong is something. It can turn your seemingly insignificant 1 vote to a seemingly more significant 5-6 votes.
Voting also makes you feel part of something important. Maybe that warm fuzzy feeling won't get back the short amount of time it takes or pay for the gas needed for transportation, but it is still worth something. I know I probably repeated multiple things already stated within this thread, but once a thread gets to 30 pages, ideas tend to get repeated.
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:1) I don't disagree that people in general have a poor grasp of probability, but you see the same pattern in all western democracies, so there's nothing unique about the US when it comes to this. Since I live in Norway, and here people aren't very religious, we do believe in evolution, and people in general are at least decently educated (and the higher the education, the more likely you are to vote)....
In Norway, you have a multiparty system and no electoral college system. Because of that, it actually makes a lot more sense to vote in Norway than it does in the United States.
In other words, voting in Norway has far better expected value than voting in the United States.
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:I would say that if lying bothers you, then voting enables you for the near future (1 - 4 years) to discuss what is going on, while knowing you 'did your part'. And it makes you feel good about having done it.
Except that you didn't really "do your part", except to people who don't know any better.
It's not about lying. You're assuming that "you didn't vote so shut the fuck up" is an irrefutable argument, but it's just a logical fallacy. If anyone says that, then I'm not going to bother conversing with them, because they're morons.
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:It's worth making a note of the fact that the minority regulary plays the lottery, while the majority votes, that there is an inverse relationship between who is more likely to vote (better educated, richer, part of the majority group), than those that play the lottery (poorer, less educated, minorities).
I gave playing lottery as a single example of irrationality, but there's many more: people make poor investment decisions of all sorts, people gamble in casino games that are always -EV, people buy Apple products when they're overpriced compared to similar-quality devices, products. The only point I'm making here, is that while people aren't generally morons, they also don't always make the best decisions, due to cognitive biases and poor information.
Let me put it another way:
If you are only after benefits and costs that can be clearly measured, there is no real cost to voting for most people. It's time spent doing something offering no real benefits (according to you - according to me it gives real benefits), but the same can be said for most activities people would spend their time doing. If it costs money getting there for you, it may cost something of some very small value, but for a lot of people, nothing really.
Why attack voting when you can do the same for watching TV, reading a book, watching a movie, a tv series, or ... pretty much most things people do except work? It's obviously not a rational way to spend time, since the benefits doesn't exist - correct?
Not voting may in certain circles carry a negative expected social value. If lying doesn't bother you, then it doesn't matter obviously. Unless you can be caught at it (if it's tracked). I know that if we were to discuss politics in real life (not likely, but someone with a similar stance to you, it would among my friends be considered negative to not bother voting and complain about politics and or politicians. If you don't enjoy or like to discuss politics, economics, foreign issues etc, then this probably doesn't matter anyway.
Strictly speaking, if you are going from pure rationality, being bothered by lying wouldn't count since it's not a 'real' benefit, so if that's the only thing you want to argue, I concede that point. Go ahead and lie about having voted all you want, and gain the benefits from doing so, without having done so. If that's your stance, I won't dispute it.
However, in the real world, I say again - there's a real benefit from voting, and that comes from having done your part, and being able to say so, without being bothered by lying, whenever these issues are discussed.
On March 03 2012 10:08 aebriol wrote:If you are only after benefits and costs that can be clearly measured, there is no real cost to voting for most people. It's time spent doing something offering no real benefits (according to you - according to me it gives real benefits), but the same can be said for most activities people would spend their time doing. If it costs money getting there for you, it may cost something of some very small value, but for a lot of people, nothing really.
The costs of voting are small, yes. The benefits of voting, on the other hand, are usually infintestimally small. And yes, the -EV is accordingly small enough that it is easy to make that irrational choice (e.g. irrational rationality).
On March 03 2012 10:08 aebriol wrote:Why attack voting when you can do the same for watching TV, reading a book, watching a movie, a tv series, or ... pretty much most things people do except work? It's obviously not a rational way to spend time, since the benefits doesn't exist - correct?
People don't watch TV and then self-righteously claim (erroneously) that they made a difference while deriding people who don't watch TV.
On March 03 2012 10:08 aebriol wrote:However, in the real world, I say again - there's a real benefit from voting, and that comes from having done your part, and being able to say so, without being bothered by lying, whenever these issues are discussed.
You keep missing the point, which is that people are deluding themselves when they claim that they "did their part". They're proud of accomplishing nothing, and it's not a benefit to be a part of that.
It's no different from people who quit Facebook for a day and then claim to have "done their part" in fighting for privacy.
On March 03 2012 10:26 sunprince wrote: You keep missing the point, which is that people are deluding themselves when they claim that they "did their part". They're proud of accomplishing nothing, and it's not a benefit to be a part of that.
They did their civic duty. They are proud of that. They feel good about that. They did do their part. That part doesn't matter much, but it's certainly their part in a democracy - casting their vote.
IF you assume that 'doing the right thing' doesn't matter and shouldn't be counted and being proud of that is deluding yourself, then fine, you win the argument.
I disagree completely with you that feeling good about your actions when you do what you perceive as the 'right thing' isn't a real benefit.
If you don't assume that, then I am not reaching you. In society, there's a perceived social value from having voted and 'done your part' and being a good upstanding citizen. At least in many social circles (in some it's the opposite, but that's not the majority).
That people are proud of 'doing their part' by voting, is simply being proud of doing what they perceive as the right thing to do.
It doesn't have to make a difference anywhere, as long as they do 'their part' - which is voting.
There's an election: 1) You can vote and be honest about it. 2) You can not vote and be honest about it. 3) You can vote and lie about it. 4) You can not vote and lie about it.
Expected value of not voting (no cost) and lying about it (no cost, small intangible benefits) wins out, so I assume that's what any rational person would do, right?
IF you perceive lying as wrong, then 'how you feel' matters, and then simply doing 'what is right' which most people perceive as doing their civic duty by voting, wins out unless the cost outweight the benefits for them. But that's intangibles again.
To me you are missing the point.
Either argue that 'feelings' and 'social value' doesn't matter for voting, and if so, clearly, not voting, and lying about having voted, is the best choice. Which is then what you should do.
Or accept that feeling good about what you do is a real benefit, and therefore voting because it makes you feel good about having voted, is a real benefit that for most people outweight the cost.
To me it seems like you are arguing no one should vote.
That is completely missing the point.
Assuming you are the most selfish individual in existence, the best thing in the world would be for 100% of people - except you - to vote, as long as you perceive them to have an ever so slight bias towards the better candidate.
So - from a purely rational point of view - you should not vote, lie about it, and try to get everyone to vote - as long as it doesn't cost you anything.
On March 03 2012 10:58 Abort Retry Fail wrote: What do you mean? Voting is not just a right, but a responsibility in a democratic country. How else do you choose leaders?
You kind of have to understand how much Americans hate anything political. Most Americans are extremely cynical of the government and don't really care who gets elected to any branch of government at any level, because the assumption is that they'll all do a bad job and fuck you over one way or another.
Me, I tend to think of voting in the US kind of like this:
To vote republican is to vote for moral bankruptcy. To vote democratic is to vote for financial bankruptcy. To not vote is be apathetic toward either form of bankruptcy.
Basically, choose how you want to destroy yourself.
I have voted in every election since 1996 even though I am in a state that is consistently contrary to my political leanings. There are numerous examples of very close elections coming down to multiple recounts. Just look at Bush v Gore in Florida, 537 vote margin out of 5,962,657.
The top of the ticket isn't the only office being voted on either. Judges, congress, and state representatives are all elected in the same years as a presidential election, not to mention referendums. Prop 8 in California made same sex marriage illegal(briefly), and it was voted on during the state elections. If you don't vote you miss out on these big issues that are direct mandates.
I remember when George Bush Jr was elected. That was enough proof to me that you don't live in a democracy anymore, i.e. when the president is the son of a former president.
If voting doesn't matter, you are voting for the wrong people. If there are no right people running..well, now is YOUR chance to make a difference. If you think YOUR cause is right, I'm sure others will agree and vote for you.
One of the reasons that politics is terrible and polarized in the United States is because some politicians who hold office intentionally create divisions in Congress, while throwing red meat to their base about being some kind of moral crusader. Regular people look at the debacle and reason, pretty fairly through some arguments in this thread, that there's no good reason to vote. This depresses turnout among moderates, who wouldn't vote for said candidate anyways, and increases turnout for their zealous backers. That increases said politican's likelihood of being reelected pretty significantly, which is exactly what they bank on.
I think voting comes down to responsibility. For all its failings, the United States has done me a remarkable amount of good. It's a simple matter of responsibility to do a small piece of what it takes to keep the nation moving. Will this only do 1/350,000,000 of what needs to be done? Sure. But the nation gave me 1/350,000,000 of its opportunity. It ensured I didn't live under some kind of tinhorn dictatorship, ensuring that I had the capacity and the community to go and get an education, etc. Responsibility is rarely personally gratifying. And whatever you think of their policies, multiple US presidents began their political careers without any kind of big money or inside deals. Having a "hasn't voted in 20 years" stain on your reputation is an easy way for opposing candidates to douse water on a prospective candidacy.
On March 03 2012 20:17 SerpentFlame wrote: Having a "hasn't voted in 20 years" stain on your reputation is an easy way for opposing candidates to douse water on a prospective candidacy.
Of course it does, exactly for the reasons sunprince explained. Repeatedly.
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:1) I don't disagree that people in general have a poor grasp of probability, but you see the same pattern in all western democracies, so there's nothing unique about the US when it comes to this. Since I live in Norway, and here people aren't very religious, we do believe in evolution, and people in general are at least decently educated (and the higher the education, the more likely you are to vote)....
In Norway, you have a multiparty system and no electoral college system. Because of that, it actually makes a lot more sense to vote in Norway than it does in the United States.
In other words, voting in Norway has far better expected value than voting in the United States.
No it doesn't
Proportional (or multiparty) v. Winner take all (or bipartisan) democracy are equaly worthless in terms of voting.
That is because ALL democracy is Winner take all.
A Proprotional representation system still forms ONE government that passes ONE set of laws, the same as a Winner take all system.
In both cases you have millions of different points of view, that have to be condensed to ONE decision (laws passed)
In a proportional representation system, the "winner take all" or "compromise" stage is pushed up to the representative level (and in a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister as the head of government it really is "winner take all".. whoever controls parliament controls the country, although you might have an independent judiciary)
In a winner take all representation system, the "winner take all" or "compromise" stage starts at the level of individual voters (ie you vote for someone you think other people will vote for as well) Now this is true even in "proportional" systems that have a minimum required vote to be a representative. (unless they have some form of second, third choices in the ballot)
In America, a key part of the structure for the Constitution was ensuring that there would be some degree of geographic agreement (a weaker form of the EUs veto power for nations). So individual districts are represented in a winner take all manner, and the electoral college ensures that a President appeals to a majority of people across a majority of the nation.
So when voting for President, it is possible your candidate may not win in your state, in which case your vote is "wasted"... but even in a pure popular vote for a President, if your candidate did not win, your vote is still "wasted"
If you vote for your representative in Congress and they don't win your district, then your vote is "wasted".... but if you vote for a party in Parliament, and that party doesn't get to select the Prime Minister/form the government, your vote is still "wasted".
However, by voting for a losing candidate or a party that ends up in the opposition, you make it known that you ARE willing to vote for XYZ. So XYZ concerns are heard and paid attention to, because the people that are the final "Winner take alls" in any system, know that they/their party have to come up for reelection, and they may not be the winners next time around if even more people are concerned with XYZ.
On March 03 2012 10:51 aebriol wrote:I disagree completely with you that feeling good about your actions when you do what you perceive as the 'right thing' isn't a real benefit.
If you don't assume that, then I am not reaching you. In society, there's a perceived social value from having voted and 'done your part' and being a good upstanding citizen. At least in many social circles (in some it's the opposite, but that's not the majority).
You're not reaching me, because I don't find the argument that you "feel good" about doing nothing to be compelling.
Like I said, if someone makes the meaningless sentimental gesture of quitting Facebook for one day and then claim to be fighting for privacy laws, I will simply laugh at them. Did they actually fight for privacy laws? Sure, I guess they made a tiny effort. Did they achieve anything or deserve to feel proud? No.
That's what people are doing by voting and then being proud about it. They are deluding themselves that they are achieving something when they aren't, and being proud is complete hypocritical bullshit. If you really want to make a difference, there's a ton of things you can actually do to make a difference, things that require more effort and sacrifice. Volunteering to help clean up an oil spill = making a difference and something worth feeling proud of. Voting against an oil-company sponsored incumbent with 90% popular support = making no difference and not worth feeling proud of.
On March 03 2012 10:51 aebriol wrote:IF you perceive lying as wrong, then 'how you feel' matters, and then simply doing 'what is right' which most people perceive as doing their civic duty by voting, wins out unless the cost outweight the benefits for them. But that's intangibles again.
I don't know why you keep talking about "lying". I don't know if it's because of a language barrier or something, but you are completely talking about irrelevant point. You keep engaging in an argumentum ad populum, where you assume that voting is a civic duty because most people agree, when that's the whole point under discussion, and then you say that you should vote so that you can honestly live up to social standards. That's equivalent to saying that if you lived in a racist society, you should be a racist so that when people ask you if you've done racist things you can honestly claim "yes" and look good to society. Social standards are bullshit.
The point I'm making is this. If you want to do your civic duty, go out and actually fight for a cause and make a difference. Go out and campaign on close elections, or volunteer to assist a noble cause, etc. Sitting on your ass 99% of the time and going out to cast an irrelevant vote once every few years doesn't give you the right to say that you did your civic duty.
On March 03 2012 10:51 aebriol wrote:To me it seems like you are arguing no one should vote.
I don't think you understand the difference between an empirical statement and a normative statement.
On March 04 2012 00:51 Krikkitone wrote:So when voting for President, it is possible your candidate may not win in your state, in which case your vote is "wasted"... but even in a pure popular vote for a President, if your candidate did not win, your vote is still "wasted"
Are you seriously insisting that an electoral college system does not increase the likelihood that your vote will be wasted?
On March 04 2012 00:51 Krikkitone wrote:If you vote for your representative in Congress and they don't win your district, then your vote is "wasted".... but if you vote for a party in Parliament, and that party doesn't get to select the Prime Minister/form the government, your vote is still "wasted".
In a parliamentary system, the opposition has a voice and parliamentary functions, much like the minority in American Congress still has a voice and certain powers. Your argument is baseless because by the same token, it would be pointless in America to vote for the Republican party when the Democrats are likely to gain a sizable majority in Congress, and vice versa.
In reality, as long as your candidate of choice is elected (regardless of whether you have a parliamentary system or not), then they can voice themselves in political decisions and occasionally . By contrast, if your vote can't even affect who gets into Congress, then you have zero influence on the political process. Your vote matters more if you can actually affect who ends up in office, so consequently there is more value to voting in a parliamentary system.
On top of that, there is also the possibility of a coalition government in a parliamentary system, which again increases the likelihood that your vote will matter.
Sunprince, I have been following your posts but I still am not sure what exactly your position actually is. Are you saying voting in the US is always a waste of time? Your vote matters for nothing, ever, period?
I'm moving to a country that has proportional representation. It at least makes me feel like my vote means something.
(to answer the OP's question, given that there is no one candidate that fits anything even close to my political beliefs, I have chosen not to exercise my right to vote)
Stopped reading at: "I hate sounding like a long-boarding...douche". Not cool man.
Also you can't just say in your first line: "Look guys, here's why I don't vote. Now, I know that's not a good reason, but "fu", it's my reason anyway." Wtf? Not a very cogent argument, sorry. Also if you have totally lost faith in the entire country, simply walking away from the problem and saying "fu im not voting" isn't very constructive. Blog indeed
On March 04 2012 02:16 sunprince wrote: The point I'm making is this. If you want to do your civic duty, go out and actually fight for a cause and make a difference. Go out and campaign on close elections, or volunteer to assist a noble cause, etc. Sitting on your ass 99% of the time and going out to cast an irrelevant vote once every few years doesn't give you the right to say that you did your civic duty.
You can write that, doesn't make it true.
Those that vote mostly do it because they believe it is their civic duty. That you don't believe it to be so, doesn't invalidate their belief.
I understand that you believe voting is pointless. And not something to feel good about. Etc.
However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it.
On March 04 2012 02:35 dp wrote:Sunprince, I have been following your posts but I still am not sure what exactly your position actually is. Are you saying voting in the US is always a waste of time? Your vote matters for nothing, ever, period?
No, I'm stating that voting is usually not worth it. In some cases, it is worth it, typically due to a small electorate or a close election. However, in most cases, the vote is far enough apart that the expected benefits of voting [(probabilty of vote affecting the outcome) * (personal benefit of different outcome)] are outweighed by the costs of voting.
In other words, if you used the following formula, the expected value is usually negative:
Expected Value of Voting = (Probability of changing outcome to win rather than lose * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
On March 04 2012 02:42 aebriol wrote:However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it.
What you fail to understand is that this is a logical fallacy. It's an argumentum ad populum.
Let me put it this way, if most people thought it was their civic duty to murder their first-born child if the child isn't a son, does that make it rational to do so? What about if most people think it's their religious duty to slaughter non-believers, does that make it rational? Hint: both of these have been true at some points in history.
On March 04 2012 02:35 dp wrote:Sunprince, I have been following your posts but I still am not sure what exactly your position actually is. Are you saying voting in the US is always a waste of time? Your vote matters for nothing, ever, period?
No, I'm stating that voting is usually not worth it. In some cases, it is worth it, typically due to a small electorate or a close election. However, in most cases, the vote is far enough apart that the expected benefits of voting [(probabilty of vote affecting the outcome) * (personal benefit of different outcome)] are outweighed by the costs of voting.
In other words, if you used the following formula, the expected value is usually negative:
Expected Value of Voting = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
And the problem of course is no two people value the benefits and cost of voting to be the same
On March 04 2012 02:48 1Eris1 wrote:And the problem of course is no two people value the benefits and cost of voting to be the same
Yes, but the idea is that the probability of affecting the outcome is so small that the benefit is usually very close to zero. When you usually multiply the benefits by a probability approaching zero, then the expected value is usually negative.
Again, it's not always irrational to vote, such as when you're voting in a closely contested election, it just usually is.
On March 04 2012 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote: Stopped reading at: "I hate sounding like a long-boarding...douche". Not cool man.
Also you can't just say in your first line: "Look guys, here's why I don't vote. Now, I know that's not a good reason, but "fu", it's my reason anyway." Wtf? Not a very cogent argument, sorry. Also if you have totally lost faith in the entire country, simply walking away from the problem and saying "fu im not voting" isn't very constructive. Blog indeed
You should probably read it if you're going to criticize it. And those things you've put in quotation marks are not quotes, nor accurate representations of what I said.
On March 04 2012 02:16 sunprince wrote: The point I'm making is this. If you want to do your civic duty, go out and actually fight for a cause and make a difference. Go out and campaign on close elections, or volunteer to assist a noble cause, etc. Sitting on your ass 99% of the time and going out to cast an irrelevant vote once every few years doesn't give you the right to say that you did your civic duty.
You can write that, doesn't make it true.
Those that vote mostly do it because they believe it is their civic duty. That you don't believe it to be so, doesn't invalidate their belief.
I understand that you believe voting is pointless. And not something to feel good about. Etc.
However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it.
I believe this is incorrect. Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned that in the US, roughly half of eligible voters vote in national elections.
On March 04 2012 02:42 aebriol wrote:However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it.
What you fail to understand is that this is a logical fallacy. It's an argumentum ad populum.
Let me put it this way, if hypothetically most people thought it was their civic duty to murder their first-born child if the child isn't a son, does that truly make it rational to do so?
Let me put it this way: you are an idiot.
I live in the real world. In this world, the majority votes.
Mostly, people that vote, vote because they believe it's part of their civic duty. In short: they feel good about doing 'the right thing' according to their beliefs.
Do you disagree?
Because you keep repeating bullshit about how this is a logical fallacy, etc, but your position isn't clear. You keep repeating the same meaningless stuff about how the individual vote doesn't count. However, that is not why people vote.
Please state your position clearly, and I will pick it apart for you because you clearly cannot defend your position.
1) Why do people vote?
2) Why is it irrational to vote? (please define the term rational here).
On March 04 2012 02:16 sunprince wrote: The point I'm making is this. If you want to do your civic duty, go out and actually fight for a cause and make a difference. Go out and campaign on close elections, or volunteer to assist a noble cause, etc. Sitting on your ass 99% of the time and going out to cast an irrelevant vote once every few years doesn't give you the right to say that you did your civic duty.
You can write that, doesn't make it true.
Those that vote mostly do it because they believe it is their civic duty. That you don't believe it to be so, doesn't invalidate their belief.
I understand that you believe voting is pointless. And not something to feel good about. Etc.
However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it.
I believe this is incorrect. Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned that in the US, roughly half of eligible voters vote in national elections.
Believe all you like.
However, in the REAL WORLD, the majority votes in the US presidential elections.
I know you are just trying to simplify things but that equation is pointless. There are other factors that matter besides being on the winning side. When I hear so many people say "no representative matches my views, so I don't vote" it sounds silly. Why should a representative care about your views when you don't vote?
Its just lazy dribble put out by people so entrenched in the idea of being smarter than everyone else that they don't realize how idiotic it sounds. Old people vote. Can we agree on that? Do you think they vote only for the outcome of any given election? Or do you think they vote because through voting they are able to wield influence over what policies come to pass?
Politicians are not all evil people. They want to keep their jobs. They need to get votes to do so. The people that vote frequently are the ones they will tailor their message towards. If the people of my generation took an hour a year to align their views with the candidates that matched them close enough and voted, soon politicians would have no choice but to begin tailoring their message to influence the youth vote.
Don't vote, and go and complain about how your views aren't represented and your politicians are all crooks. By voting for even a third party/write in candidate, you are making a difference. You are being listened to, since your tendency to vote will be taken into account next election. When you completely ignore the process, the process will ignore you right back.
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:Let me put it this way: you are an idiot.
In other words, you have no real argument, so you resort to slinging mud and logical fallacies.
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:IMostly, people that vote, vote because they believe it's part of their civic duty. In short: they feel good about doing 'the right thing' according to their beliefs.
Do you disagree?
I agree that most people vote because they believe they're doing the right thing. I disagree that this makes it rational.
Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational.
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:1) Why do people vote?
People vote because others lie to them that their vote makes a difference, that it is important to vote, and that if you vote then you've voiced your opinion. It's a socially reinforced notion that keeps people in line, because if you believe that you have been heard (when in truth no one cares what you think), then you are less likely to actually go out and make a real difference.
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:2) Why is it irrational to vote? (please define the term rational here).
I define "rational" as acting as if balancing costs against benefits; in other words, something is rational if it is +EV and irrational if it is -EV.
Voting is usually irrational because it is usually -EV, due to the following formula: Expected Value of Voting = (Probability of changing outcome to win rather than lose * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:IMostly, people that vote, vote because they believe it's part of their civic duty. In short: they feel good about doing 'the right thing' according to their beliefs.
Do you disagree?
I agree that most people vote because they believe they're doing the right thing. I disagree that this makes it rational.
Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational.
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:1) Why do people vote?
People vote because others lie to them that their vote makes a difference, that it is important to vote, and that if you vote then you've voiced your opinion. It's a socially reinforced notion that keeps people in line, because if you believe that you have been heard (when in truth no one cares what you think), then you are less likely to actually go out and make a real difference.
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:2) Why is it irrational to vote? (please define the term rational here).
I define "rational" as acting as if balancing costs against benefits; in other words, something is rational if it is +EV and irrational if it is -EV.
Voting is usually irrational because it is usually -EV, due to the following formula: Expected Value of Voting = (Probability of changing outcome to win rather than lose * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
1) Do you think people are more likely to go out and make a real difference if they vote, or if they don't vote?
In the real world, most people that actually make a difference, also vote.
Your statement is a lie.
2) Please explain how it's +EV for you to engage in discussing this on the internet on this forum. Using the same definition.
As I said, and you failed repeatedly to understand: It's +EV for people to vote IF they can expect to feel better by doing so. If you feel better after doing it, then the benefit (feeling better) outweight the cost (the slight inconvenience). That is +EV behaviour, and perfectly rational.
Just as it's perfectly rational to not vote if it's the other way around.
Your formula is a logical fallacy: petitio principii. The conclusion is implicit in your argument, but you fail to demonstrate the truth of the assumption: that the expected value of voting is based on the probability of changing the elelction result. That is not why people vote - people that vote do so for other reasons mostly.
... also, you are an idiot for coming up with the stupidest example possible: that it would be your civic duty to kill your newborn. That is so stupid, you are an idiot for saying it. It's also a logical fallacy - the straw man. So yeah, you go on an on about logical fallacies, and then you use the most well known one ... gratulations? And you may justly call this argument ad hominum, but doesn't change the truth of it.
People vote because others lie to them that their vote makes a difference, that it is important to vote, and that if you vote then you've voiced your opinion. It's a socially reinforced notion that keeps people in line, because if you believe that you have been heard (when in truth no one cares what you think), then you are less likely to actually go out and make a real difference.
On March 04 2012 03:09 sunprince wrote: Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational.
It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian.
If you are an atheist as I am, it is not.
It's also another logical fallacy - the red herring.
On March 04 2012 03:09 sunprince wrote: Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational.
It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian.
If you are an atheist as I am, it is not.
It's also another logical fallacy - the red herring.
I have a christian background. I think most Christians would say their beliefs are based on faith, not rationality.
On March 04 2012 03:09 sunprince wrote: Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational.
It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian.
If you are an atheist as I am, it is not.
It's also another logical fallacy - the red herring.
I have a christian background. I think most Christians would say their beliefs are based on faith, not rationality.
I would be willing to discuss it in PM if you want to, but since it's a logical fallacy only meant to distract from the main issue, I do not want to discuss it in this thread.
My point is based on the difference between beliefs, and actions based on beliefs - if you are certain of something, even if it's false, it's rational to act based on that information. However, further discussion - and I would love to - in PM
On March 04 2012 03:09 sunprince wrote: Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational.
It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian.
If you are an atheist as I am, it is not.
It's also another logical fallacy - the red herring.
I have a christian background. I think most Christians would say their beliefs are based on faith, not rationality.
I would be willing to discuss it in PM if you want to, but since it's a logical fallacy only meant to distract from the main issue, I do not want to discuss it in this thread.
Well, lets get back to the main issue then.
My point in the OP, summarized, is that. in general, the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making. They use this position to entrench themselves further.
I stated that the reason I don't vote is not because I think my vote doesn't matter (even though I don't think it does), but because the problem remains unchanged regardless of who wins the election.
On March 04 2012 03:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My point in the OP, summarized, is that. in general, the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making. They use this position to entrench themselves further.
I stated that the reason I don't vote is not because I think my vote doesn't matter (even though I don't think it does), but because the problem remains unchanged regardless of who wins the election.
1) I agree that the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making and use that position to entrench, and enrich, themselves further.
2) I agree with your point about the problem remaining unchanged regardless of who wins the election.
3) However, I believe that everyone should vote, because by abstaining, you are giving in to apathy - assuming you are not working in other ways to change the system.
That however is my point of view, and not one I can convince you of, since it's a value judgmenet. In short - I believe that voting in a free democracy is the right thing to do and part of your civic duty, and even if things will not change depending on who wins - there are large enough differences between the parties that you ought to at least be able to pick the lesser of two evils in any election.
By going with 'oh f%¤# it' you are giving away the only power where you are equal to the rich and powerful.
On March 04 2012 03:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote: My point in the OP, summarized, is that. in general, the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making. They use this position to entrench themselves further.
I stated that the reason I don't vote is not because I think my vote doesn't matter (even though I don't think it does), but because the problem remains unchanged regardless of who wins the election.
1) I agree that the wealthy and powerful have a disproportionate amount of control in US policy making and use that position to entrench, and enrich, themselves further.
2) I agree with your point about the problem remaining unchanged regardless of who wins the election.
3) However, I believe that everyone should vote, because by abstaining, you are giving in to apathy - assuming you are not working in other ways to change the system.
That however is my point of view, and not one I can convince you of, since it's a value judgmenet. In short - I believe that voting in a free democracy is the right thing to do and part of your civic duty, and even if things will not change depending on who wins - there are large enough differences between the parties that you ought to at least be able to pick the lesser of two evils in any election.
By going with 'oh f%¤# it' you are giving away the only power where you are equal to the rich and powerful.
I guess where we differ is that I don't think I have any power to begin with. The .000000001% of impact my vote has is zero as far as I'm concerned.
On March 04 2012 03:55 mynameisgreat11 wrote: I guess where we differ is that I don't think I have any power to begin with. The .000000001% of impact my vote has is zero as far as I'm concerned.
I wouldn't say that is where we differ ... I would say, we differ in that I value participating in the democratic process in itself and that has value for me, even if I agree my personal power is as close to 0 so it might as well be zero.
You might also say it's leading by example.
If 100% of people voted, then the bias against bad candidates would be stronger. Since a large majority that support neither party doesn't care, it's largely left up to the parties to decide who runs. That's reinforcing the current power structure. In a better world, everyone would vote, regardless of their affiliations, and it would likely lead to better results - in my opinion.
Since that is my opinion, I vote because I believe it would be better if everyone voted. Even if my vote doesn't matter in any election - I believe the right thing to do is using the vote.
On March 04 2012 03:55 mynameisgreat11 wrote: I guess where we differ is that I don't think I have any power to begin with. The .000000001% of impact my vote has is zero as far as I'm concerned.
I wouldn't say that is where we differ ... I would say, we differ in that I value participating in the democratic process in itself and that has value for me, even if I agree my personal power is as close to 0 so it might as well be zero.
You might also say it's leading by example.
If 100% of people voted, then the bias against bad candidates would be stronger. Since a large majority that support neither party doesn't care, it's largely left up to the parties to decide who runs. That's reinforcing the current power structure. In a better world, everyone would vote, regardless of their affiliations, and it would likely lead to better results - in my opinion.
Since that is my opinion, I vote because I believe it would be better if everyone voted. Even if my vote doesn't matter in any election - I believe the right thing to do is using the vote.
Lol, and thus ends the most civil political discourse in internet history
You might be surprised as to how much personal power you have. You might only be .000000001% of the national vote, but you are a much higher percentage of your state, and even higher in your city or county. Beyond that, you can join your local precinct committee and work on issues at that level, and work your way up from there. That is really where you can have a disproportionate influence on local politics. Whether you like the Tea Party or not, they are an excellent example of political organizing from the ground up.
You're just one person. Imagine if EVERY person who didn't vote were to get off their ass and vote. Who knows what might happen. Just because a state is lopsided for one candidate at the polls doesn't mean they would win if 100% of the registered voters were to vote.
Another issue is the electoral college which is a complete joke and should be done away with.
Another issue is that local stuff such as the construction of the oregon/washington bridges has been routinely voted DOWN by the tax payers, however, despite us clearly showing them the message that we DO NOT WANT to build a 2 billion dollar bridge that is no more efficient than the current one they are going ahead with it anyways because apparently the vote was for nothing.
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.
And they're only different when it comes to campaign promises. Once they're in office, they all do the same exact things. They all take away rights, get too involved in petty, regional conflicts, and only serve whatever group pays the biggest bribes.
The system is intentionally designed to make change difficult. From years of experience, it's better that way. You don't want a system that can make drastic changes at the drop of a hat. Even when the change seems like a good idea, it should happen gradually so that people can have time to adjust.
As long as you don't get the money out of your political system i.e. public funding for parties/elections, I will cringe every time I see a US representative/citizen use the word "democracy". So probably as long as I live. Since obviously public funding = socialism = communism = stalin = death camps = yeah, you're fucked. Big money will always own your nation.
As long as you don't get the money out of your political system i.e. public funding for parties/elections, I will cringe every time I see a US representative/citizen use the word "democracy". So probably as long as I live.
Free speech means no democracy?
Interesting.
Every time I see someone pompously proclaim about how "money in politics" (aka free speech) undermines democracy, it makes me cringe.
Since obviously public funding = socialism = communism = stalin = death camps = yeah, you're fucked. Big money will always own your nation.
Since obviously free speech = plutocracy = yeah, you're fucked. Silliness will always own your thinking.
As long as you don't get the money out of your political system i.e. public funding for parties/elections, I will cringe every time I see a US representative/citizen use the word "democracy". So probably as long as I live.
Free speech means no democracy?
Interesting.
Every time I see someone pompously proclaim about how "money in politics" (aka free speech) undermines democracy, it makes me cringe.
Speech isn't free, if you want it to reach a large number of people. The question on the table is not free speech, it's expensive speech. The kind of speech you get by having a bullhorn made of money.
A billionaire has a hell of a lot more 'free speech' than a person who lives paycheck to paycheck.
As long as you don't get the money out of your political system i.e. public funding for parties/elections, I will cringe every time I see a US representative/citizen use the word "democracy". So probably as long as I live.
Free speech means no democracy?
Interesting.
Every time I see someone pompously proclaim about how "money in politics" (aka free speech) undermines democracy, it makes me cringe.
Speech isn't free, if you want it to reach a large number of people. The question on the table is not free speech, it's expensive speech. The kind of speech you get by having a bullhorn made of money.
A billionaire has a hell of a lot more 'free speech' than a person who lives paycheck to paycheck.
Free speech and influence isn't the same. You are talking about influence.
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.
On March 04 2012 03:26 aebriol wrote:1) Do you think people are more likely to go out and make a real difference if they vote, or if they don't vote?
In the real world, most people that actually make a difference, also vote.
Thanks for completely ignoring the real issue. Red herring at its finest.
On March 04 2012 03:26 aebriol wrote:As I said, and you failed repeatedly to understand: It's +EV for people to vote IF they can expect to feel better by doing so. If you feel better after doing it, then the benefit (feeling better) outweight the cost (the slight inconvenience). That is +EV behaviour, and perfectly rational.
Feelings aren't rational. The fact that you think they are demonstrates a complete failure on your part to understand the term "rational".
On March 04 2012 03:26 aebriol wrote:... also, you are an idiot for coming up with the stupidest example possible: that it would be your civic duty to kill your newborn. That is so stupid, you are an idiot for saying it. It's also a logical fallacy - the straw man. So yeah, you go on an on about logical fallacies, and then you use the most well known one ... gratulations? And you may justly call this argument ad hominum, but doesn't change the truth of it.
You have no idea what an argumentum ad populum is, so I'm giving you an extreme example to show you what's wrong with it. It's not a straw man, because the idea is completely parallel. Your argument boils down to the following:
A: If most people think something is a civic duty, then doing so is rational. B. Most people think voting is a civic duty. C. Therefore, voting is rational.
The problem is that A is obviously false. What you're completely failing to grasp is that society's beliefs do not in any way determine rationality.
On March 04 2012 03:34 aebriol wrote:It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian.
If you are an atheist as I am, it is not.
This is the root of the problem: you have no idea what "rational" means.
Religion is not rational. It is based on faith, which could be said to be the antithesis of rationality.
On March 04 2012 03:34 aebriol wrote:It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian.
If you are an atheist as I am, it is not.
This is the root of the problem: you have no idea what "rational" means.
Religion is not rational. It is based on faith, which could be said to be the antithesis of rationality.
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 - one of the 3 logical fallacies you commited on the last page.
Please continue making a fool out of yourself by arguing the main point, not the red herring you introduced.
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
I third this entire sentiment. The time when politicians were respected public servants that tried to represent the will of their constituents is something of a fairy-tale in today's United States, they are all just celebriticians to me anymore. They get elected for a term and then they go off to shoot a reality show (I'm looking at you Sarah Palin, you frigid wacko). We have lost our electoral individuality and the ability to do much more than vote along the stilted lines of party politics :/
![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lya99vKAAV1qztbgd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GcYbD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3PNjM.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/CA2008Pres.svg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Turnout.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9XrlD.jpg)
