|
|
On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me.
Then make a raft and float out into international waters and live like a king! Nobody is forcing you to stay here!
|
On November 06 2012 15:51 mmp wrote:
This is a little off topic, but is anyone familiar with the electoral climate in Russia (where Kasparov gets thrown in jail)? That is, are elections outright rigged for Putin or is there a serious divide between the haves and the have-nots, such that the have-nots simply don't bother to turn out in big numbers (similar to the 40-50% apathetic Americans who don't show up)?
The reason I ask is because the two-party duopoly that we have in the U.S. is aligned on most of the major issues (economic agenda, healthcare, campaign finance, foreign-policy), and while the GOP is generally farther to the right on some of the "soft" issues, the Dems are quite right-of-center themselves (certainly in comparison to our peers in Canada/Europe). So you have a right-wing consensus among both parties, and the votes go something like 95% Rep or Dem, which is virtually unanimous consent.
Is this consent similar to the "manufactured consent" Americans perceive in countries stigmatized as undemocratic (like Russia), or are their sharper differences between the American and Russian climate worth mentioning?
Walk around Moscow and attempt to poll 1000 random people (if you can) as to how "free" they feel and how happy they are. Do the same in any major US city and the differences will be awfully sharp. And this fails to take into account the fact that a significantly more distended proportion of wealth is held in major cities in Russia, meaning the smaller population centers are likely even worse off. My point is that resultant effect is an important consideration in comparative politics, and in this sense alone a comparison with Russia begins to fall apart. One could go on to point to the tremendous difference in how "effective" political power in Russia is handled via idiosyncratic relationships like that between the Kremlin and the Danilov Monastary and how that too renders comparison difficult. But I digress 
|
On November 06 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 15:51 mmp wrote:
This is a little off topic, but is anyone familiar with the electoral climate in Russia (where Kasparov gets thrown in jail)? That is, are elections outright rigged for Putin or is there a serious divide between the haves and the have-nots, such that the have-nots simply don't bother to turn out in big numbers (similar to the 40-50% apathetic Americans who don't show up)?
The reason I ask is because the two-party duopoly that we have in the U.S. is aligned on most of the major issues (economic agenda, healthcare, campaign finance, foreign-policy), and while the GOP is generally farther to the right on some of the "soft" issues, the Dems are quite right-of-center themselves (certainly in comparison to our peers in Canada/Europe). So you have a right-wing consensus among both parties, and the votes go something like 95% Rep or Dem, which is virtually unanimous consent.
Is this consent similar to the "manufactured consent" Americans perceive in countries stigmatized as undemocratic (like Russia), or are their sharper differences between the American and Russian climate worth mentioning? Walk around Moscow and attempt to poll 1000 random people (if you can) as to how "free" they feel and how happy they are. Do the same in any major US city and the differences will be awfully sharp. And this fails to take into account the fact that a significantly more distended proportion of wealth is held in major cities in Russia, meaning the smaller population centers are likely even worse off. My point is that resultant effect is an important consideration in comparative politics, and in this sense alone a comparison with Russia begins to fall apart. One could go on to point to the tremendous difference in how "effective" political power in Russia is handled via idiosyncratic relationships like that between the Kremlin and the Danilov Monastary and how that too renders comparison difficult. But I digress
Please, digress.
|
Not surprised I'd side most with the Green Party candidate, but I voted for Obama anyways.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 06 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:
Walk around Moscow and attempt to poll 1000 random people (if you can) as to how "free" they feel and how happy they are. Do the same in any major US city and the differences will be awfully sharp.
My question was mainly, is the electoral system utterly corrupted, or is it just a similar perception of defeat that keeps people away from an otherwise fair election.
In the U.S. our elections are more or less (with serious exceptions in the swing states, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, and all sorts of other dirty tricks (Nixon, Jeb Bush)) fair, and both parties respect the outcome of the election (e.g. Gore's abdication in 2000). The votes are counted.
|
On November 06 2012 15:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:So I took that quiz. The results are a little surprising to me, they put Romney in last place! I'm more Democrat than Republican apparently, hate to disappoint all you liberals, especially Souma and oneofthem. + Show Spoiler +
I did too and was also sort of surprised but not really.
I think Libertarian is more of a fiscal right and a social left, but I don't know.
Here goes.
+ Show Spoiler +
I think the quiz is a little too short to be wholly accurate, or maybe I say that after reading what you have to say, jd 
After all, Obama is only so high on my chart because I'm so pro mexican immigration, and immigration in general. I actually am more along Newt Gingrich's line there if what a politician says is to be believed.
I'm actually pretty solidly right wing but I try to be open. (I'm also somewhat in favor of Gun control, definitely more than we have now but not so much more.)
As for this election? Well, look at my poll results. That's where my vote will land. And I checked the Senatorial, and I think the House is so obvious in my area that they were possibly lauging at me when they put up their donation page.
Thanks much folks and p4NDemik is righ- I mean, correct, everyone! Pride of this sort is not good.
|
On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me.
It's called tacit consent. Now that you are of age, you have the ability to withdraw your consent. That of course involves giving up everything that the society has given you, breaking all ties to it, and leaving it.
Rousseau said it best:
There is but one law which, from its nature, needs unanimous consent. This is the social compact; for civil association is the most voluntary of all acts. Every man being born free and his own master, no one, under any pretext whatsoever, can make any man subject without his consent. To decide that the son of a slave is born a slave is to decide that he is not born a man.
If then there are opponents when the social compact is made, their opposition does not invalidate the contract, but merely prevents them from being included in it. They are foreigners among citizens. When the State is instituted, residence constitutes consent; to dwell within its territory is to submit to the Sovereign.
The words "I do not consent" mean nothing in this instance. You must no longer consent by action, not by words.
As for the 40% who will not vote, it probably doesn't make much of a difference. We can suppose that the division amongst non-voters would be roughly equal to the division amongst voters, and therefore the same result would occur if 100% of legal voters did in fact vote.
But here's the kicker:
By voting you are consenting to the decision of who the next President will be. Whether your favored candidate wins or not. But by not voting, you are doing the same. Because, to put a spin on Rousseau's words, it is not the action of choosing of a sovereign which grants consent, but rather that one way or the other, you are willing to suffer the consequences and remain a citizen of the country.
TL;DR
Tacit consent can only be undone by expressed consent
Expressed consent must be made manifest, you can't just say "screw you government" and continue to live under it.
|
Canada11440 Posts
On November 06 2012 15:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:So I took that quiz. The results are a little surprising to me, they put Romney in last place! I'm more Democrat than Republican apparently, hate to disappoint all you liberals, especially Souma and oneofthem. + Show Spoiler +
That's funny. I actually support Romney more than you according to this.
+ Show Spoiler +
...but still dead last.
I wonder what your Green party is advocating because there is no way I would match that closely to Elizabeth May in Canada. (It's like the last party I would vote for.)
|
On November 06 2012 15:59 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:On November 06 2012 15:51 mmp wrote:
This is a little off topic, but is anyone familiar with the electoral climate in Russia (where Kasparov gets thrown in jail)? That is, are elections outright rigged for Putin or is there a serious divide between the haves and the have-nots, such that the have-nots simply don't bother to turn out in big numbers (similar to the 40-50% apathetic Americans who don't show up)?
The reason I ask is because the two-party duopoly that we have in the U.S. is aligned on most of the major issues (economic agenda, healthcare, campaign finance, foreign-policy), and while the GOP is generally farther to the right on some of the "soft" issues, the Dems are quite right-of-center themselves (certainly in comparison to our peers in Canada/Europe). So you have a right-wing consensus among both parties, and the votes go something like 95% Rep or Dem, which is virtually unanimous consent.
Is this consent similar to the "manufactured consent" Americans perceive in countries stigmatized as undemocratic (like Russia), or are their sharper differences between the American and Russian climate worth mentioning? Walk around Moscow and attempt to poll 1000 random people (if you can) as to how "free" they feel and how happy they are. Do the same in any major US city and the differences will be awfully sharp. And this fails to take into account the fact that a significantly more distended proportion of wealth is held in major cities in Russia, meaning the smaller population centers are likely even worse off. My point is that resultant effect is an important consideration in comparative politics, and in this sense alone a comparison with Russia begins to fall apart. One could go on to point to the tremendous difference in how "effective" political power in Russia is handled via idiosyncratic relationships like that between the Kremlin and the Danilov Monastary and how that too renders comparison difficult. But I digress Please, digress.
Ok, well a bit more on that last point, power distribution amongst Russia's leadership is considerably more consolidated than in many more progressive countries, and the role of the church is important here. Russia is one of the few states that still clings to at least the illusion of a religious aspect of governance, mostly due to Putin and his camp loving having the church as an ally; it grants them a brand of ahistorical legitimacy, an air of pre-Bolshevik orthodoxy. A lot of people don't describe it this way, but contemporary Russian national politics has boiled down to a rather one dimensional love of wealth and its father, Vladimir Putin. A very select few, by virtue of their being a part of the upper strata, all lap in the wealth brought in by significant oil and commodity successes while the rest are sort of crushed by their extremely limited class mobility and earning potential. Putin is an old school wayguide, a former KGB slickster who can offer forth an extreme brand of governmental solidarity, the sort that can weather the inevitable fallout of continuing incredible wealth disparity in the name of "Not the USSR".
"Consensus" in Russia, while heavily manipulated, manufactured, and forced, is definitely there. The same cannot be said for the United States; our collective political successes and failures hinge upon an idiosyncratic push and pull between those who think they are right and those who simply want to win. Consensus in the United States is a sort of idyllic limit equation, a pursuit towards a uniformity in opinion that will never exist but is nonetheless important to work towards. I guess my point in the end is that comparative politics, especially when discussed in regards to countries as dissimilar as the US and Russia, sort of fail once one starts getting specific enough for it to matter.
Edit: If we are talking about the electoral college, I think it is a sort of representative "medium" that guarantees a degree of minority representation (rural/low density populations) that is certainly difficult to defend. But, I am myself working on a discussion of representative "speedbumps" in the US political system and how they afford the system a degree of necessary "buffer". But I'm just spitballin here
|
On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me.
Get the hell out of the country if it's so bad instead of bitching about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenship
Voting Johnson. Some say its a wasted vote, but I am not in a swing state anyway. I'll enjoy the drama tomorrow if nothing else.
|
I side with:
- Jill Stein = 79%
- Gary Johnson = 77%
- Rocky Anderson = 65%
- Barack Obama = 60%
- Mitt Romney = 21%
I side the most with Gary Johnson on foreign policy issues.
I side the most with Jill Stein on domestic policy issues.
I side the most with Rocky Anderson on economic issues.
I side the most with Barack Obama on healthcare issues. (Shoulda been Stein)
I side the most with Jill Stein on environmental issues.
I side the most with Mitt Romney on immigration issues.
I side the most with Mitt Romney on science issues.
I side the most with Gary Johnson on social issues.
|
On November 06 2012 16:03 mmp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 15:58 farvacola wrote:
Walk around Moscow and attempt to poll 1000 random people (if you can) as to how "free" they feel and how happy they are. Do the same in any major US city and the differences will be awfully sharp. My question was mainly, is the electoral system utterly corrupted, or is it just a similar perception of defeat that keeps people away from an otherwise fair election. In the U.S. our elections are more or less (with serious exceptions in the swing states, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, and all sorts of other dirty tricks (Nixon, Jeb Bush)) fair, and both parties respect the outcome of the election (e.g. Gore's abdication in 2000). The votes are counted.
Yes, the system is utterly corrupt as party officials of United Russia control all levers of government from the federal level on down to region to sub regional to specific sub units. Alternative political parties are not allowed to organize unless they are comical, like the national-socialist wannabes, or are neutered, the way the liberal 'Apple' block was. The KGB routinely attempts to launch honey pot operations against its critics to discredit them. There is also a non stop cult of personality built around Putin doing many manly things that is supposed to create a sharp contrast between Putin and Yeltsin. Finally, significant portions of the oil revenue are diverted to various special projects that buy voters directly, pushing up the breakeven point for the Russian budget to 125 dollars per barrel.
|
Took that quiz for fun. I believe I should look up who Jill Stein is, because apparently I side 98% with her...
Regardless of todays outcome, I hope there's a high voting percentage anyhow. Glhf, guys o/
|
Hmm, I guess I really don't agree with Republican ideals.
+ Show Spoiler +
And the breakdown on issues, didn't think I'd side with Gary Johnson so much tbh.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me.
To be honest, I used to think you were kind of an obnoxious rabble rouser, but now that you're miserable, it's kind of hilarious. Keep it up!
|
Could someone PM me about when the voting has become final? I mean when it is certain who has won?
Is that 10 hours? 2 days? I have no clue  Thanks
|
+ Show Spoiler +
It probably sounds about right.
On November 06 2012 17:08 frontliner2 wrote:Could someone PM me about when the voting has become final? I mean when it is certain who has won? Is that 10 hours? 2 days? I have no clue Thanks
It varies a lot by election... I would say checking back in about 20-24 hours will give you a good idea. If it's as close as everyone says, it may take a while due to recounts and crap.
|
On November 06 2012 16:59 xBillehx wrote:Hmm, I guess I really don't agree with Republican ideals. + Show Spoiler +And the breakdown on issues, didn't think I'd side with Gary Johnson so much tbh. + Show Spoiler +
No "real" person is actually republican.
|
For the first time ever, there is a tie in Dixville Notch, NH, one of the tiny two villages that are the first places in the country to vote. It was a 5-5 split between the two candidates.
The other village, Hart's Location, NH, saw Obama receive 23 votes, while Romney received only 9, with one vote going to Gary Johnson.
Source
edit: And so it begins
|
On November 06 2012 15:52 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2012 15:47 Zaqwert wrote:
Today ~30% of people will vote for one guy, ~30% of people will vote for a different guy, ~40% of people won't vote at all.
And the guy who wins will go immediately start forcing a whole bunch of crap on the other 70% of the country because of his "mandate"
Democracy is a joke.
I never asked to be part of this little system, yet I am a slave to it. My rights, my property, my freedoms, all at the whims of millions of other dullards ever couple of years in Novemeber.
I never gave anyone consent or permission to make decisions about my life other than me. Where is a first world problems meme when you need one.
It is a huge problem that whoever wins will govern with the consent of 30% of the adult population. Not sure that there is a realistic solution better than just hoping more people start to both care and participate, but it's scary that 30% of the country can send us to war or take away people's rights / etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/217658269.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aImU4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6VYPQ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZPZom.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oCqww.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NCBy6.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/217885067.jpg)
