View Full Version : Voting is Pointless because I have a strong-interest in Democracy
You refuse to vote - so you're pretty depressing too.
And anyway, maybe you should look at the posts where we're at least trying to be civil and even handed?
Derail, but I don't vote *because* I have a strong interest in democracy.
It's like if you were a great art lover, would you accept a postcard with some 5 year old's scrawl on it and accept that as the best you can get?
It doesn 't happen often that I agree with Idaho. Don't vote either. It's like saving up photographs of 100 euro bills.
Hooahguy
07-22-2014, 16:31
Do you guys not have write-in ballots? In the few cases I decided not to vote I just went in anyways and wrote in Skeletor for my choice of candidate.
Don't know about the UK but you can make a blank vote, your blank vote will still be distributed among the winning parties. So I don't vote at all, never have, people say I shouldn't complain if I don't vote, but if you ask why that is so exactly you get a rather sheepish gaze in return.
Derail, but I don't vote *because* I have a strong interest in democracy.
It's like if you were a great art lover, would you accept a postcard with some 5 year old's scrawl on it and accept that as the best you can get?
That doesn't make sense. You would vote and be politically active to what you want to happen. If this view was a broad-consensus, then the system would change. If you want to make politicians more accountable, vote for those who hold accountability dear, and campaign for it.
Not voting would be the same as accepting a 5-years-olds scribble going "it is the best it is going to be, no point in trying", opposed to tearing it up, appealing to those with artistic skills and merits and trying to change it to something actually good.
So your 'strong interest in democracy' is an oxymoron since the actions you pursue entail attempting to destroy democracy. Whilst there is far more to it than simply 'voting', not voting is like not bothering to use toilet-paper and not even washing your hands afterwards, then going off complaining how your sandwich tastes disgusting.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-22-2014, 21:51
Derail, but I don't vote *because* I have a strong interest in democracy.
It's like if you were a great art lover, would you accept a postcard with some 5 year old's scrawl on it and accept that as the best you can get?
If everybody in the city like you voted for someone instead of complaining, we'd have a decent MP.
So would the rest of the country.
If you don't vote you abdicate the right to complain about the result.
Don't know about the UK but you can make a blank vote, your blank vote will still be distributed among the winning parties. So I don't vote at all, never have, people say I shouldn't complain if I don't vote, but if you ask why that is so exactly you get a rather sheepish gaze in return.
You can go in and spoil it, it will be recorded as "spoiled" and reported as such.
Papewaio
07-22-2014, 23:16
Derail, but I don't vote *because* I have a strong interest in democracy.
It's like if you were a great art lover, would you accept a postcard with some 5 year old's scrawl on it and accept that as the best you can get?
If you are in a kindergarten then you vote for the best one. And the next time you vote for someone else.
If nothing else voting against the incumbent is the best default tactic as a voter as swing seats get the most loot. Also a lot of politician entitlements are tenure based. So if they show no promise give them the flick and reduce the cost long term. Rinse and repeat until you find someone with the ability to scrawl like a ten year old.
I think we need a new thread about not voting. It's an interesting topic, where I am right and you are all wrong.
Papewaio
07-23-2014, 11:05
I think we need a new thread about not voting. It's an interesting topic, where I am right and you are all wrong.
Should it start with a poll ~:smoking:
Montmorency
07-23-2014, 15:46
If this view was a broad-consensus, then the system would change.
If everybody in the city like you voted
There's a critical flaw in this line of reasoning, yet it's always brought up in this sort of discussion.
If it is right to vote when it is possible and safe to do so, then it must be for reasons other than this quoted.
There's a critical flaw in this line of reasoning, yet it's always brought up in this sort of discussion.
Where is the flaw?
Democracy is a system fundamentally built upon compromise of peoples voices. Whilst sometimes there are arguments and one-side wins, it usually produces a system which reflects the wishes of those who vote/campaign/elect.
Therefore, if you do not take part, your wishes are not being reflected by your own choice, so complaining about it is pointless as it is your own fault your wishes are not being heard as you refuse to act.
So the way to be heard is to engage with the system and if the opinion is swayed too much in one direction, it is your duty to amend that with your voice.
This is different for those who do vote as they are actually engaging with the system, so when an MP is not representing them, they can give them the stick for not doing so. Voting is choosing to be heard.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-23-2014, 16:45
There's a critical flaw in this line of reasoning, yet it's always brought up in this sort of discussion.
If it is right to vote when it is possible and safe to do so, then it must be for reasons other than this quoted.
I have told Idaho several times that if he stands, I will run his campaign - I will go door to door and ask people to vote for him - I will run a campaign persuading people to register in the city to vote...
Idaho pointed out he can't afford the fee to enter as a candidate - that's a valid point but it's seperate from his main objection.
In the UK we can vote for any standing candidate - nobody is going to beat us up - nobody is going to ask how much property we own or whether we are Jewish.
We get the politicians we vote for in the UK - if we don't vote then our voice cannot be heard.
So far as I know Idaho does not even campaign on a local level for electoral or political reform - so he's just grumping about how he doesn't like politicians and then refusing to even try to do anything about it.
Fisherking
07-23-2014, 16:53
Well, there is always George Carlin’s view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
Language!!!! if you never heard George Carlin....
Well, there is always George Carlin’s view. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
Language!!!! if you never heard George Carlin....
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wake_up_sheeple.png
One fundamental issue is that we all imagine we are smarter than average when this is mostly not the case. You have those other Carlin's like "Imagine the average person and realise 50% are dumber than that". In the video he comes on about how we are all blissfully unaware of what is going on, not able to think for ourselves.
What he said is true, Corporations do lobby with billions and they try their best to grab people by their most sensitive areas. So what is the solution? Moan about it with apathy and not giving a damn, or actually going out there to do something to change it. If you are playing internet warrior whilst doing jack-all about the situation, cannot even be bothered to vote, then you are just as bad, if not worse, than the 'sheeple' people bemoan about.
It is the same as walking into a restaurant and saying: "give me something off the menu"
You wait till you eventually get the kids meal chicken dippers covered in sweet&sour sauce dip.
You complain the waiter "What is this? When I said give me something, I didn't expect or want this, why not the steak?"
Waiters: "Sir, did you order the steak?"
You shuffle uncomfortable in your chair "No, I didn't"
Waiter replies: "Next time, when you want Steak, order it".
Who is the person in the wrong, the waiter or the customer? Who is the person who didn't voice what they wanted and thus didn't get it?
Don't know about the UK but you can make a blank vote, your blank vote will still be distributed among the winning parties. So I don't vote at all, never have, people say I shouldn't complain if I don't vote, but if you ask why that is so exactly you get a rather sheepish gaze in return.
Even if there is no political party representing your political views, there is the option of the spoilt vote.
It's not distributed to any party, winning or losing (at least, in my country) and you have the choice to express your opinion about politics, either through salamis or through emotional messages ("You are all scumbags!", "Long live the anarchy" and etc.).
Fisherking
07-23-2014, 18:36
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wake_up_sheeple.png
One fundamental issue is that we all imagine we are smarter than average when this is mostly not the case. You have those other Carlin's like "Imagine the average person and realise 50% are dumber than that". In the video he comes on about how we are all blissfully unaware of what is going on, not able to think for ourselves.
What he said is true, Corporations do lobby with billions and they try their best to grab people by their most sensitive areas. So what is the solution? Moan about it with apathy and not giving a damn, or actually going out there to do something to change it. If you are playing internet warrior whilst doing jack-all about the situation, cannot even be bothered to vote, then you are just as bad, if not worse, than the 'sheeple' people bemoan about.
It is the same as walking into a restaurant and saying: "give me something off the menu"
You wait till you eventually get the kids meal chicken dippers covered in sweet&sour sauce dip.
You complain the waiter "What is this? When I said give me something, I didn't expect or want this, why not the steak?"
Waiters: "Sir, did you order the steak?"
You shuffle uncomfortable in your chair "No, I didn't"
Waiter replies: "Next time, when you want Steak, order it".
Who is the person in the wrong, the waiter or the customer? Who is the person who didn't voice what they wanted and thus didn't get it?
I think it was also Carlin who said:
We have two political parties in this country. One is stupid and the other one is evil. Some times they get together in bipartisan fashion and pass laws that are both stupid and evil.
Actually we have only a political class. Not parties. They are very good at rhetoric and finger pointing as a distraction. They have subsidized the business interests in a way that has corrupted the whole system.
I don’t for a moment think that I have the answers to the worlds problems. Governments need changed but it is more the people in government than the underlying framework, at least in the US.
Most people are satisfied to just keep voting for their party and thinking that will change the course but it never does.
Perhaps the only way is what has happened in the spring uprisings and in Ukraine but those never go well either.
All I know is that I find my self unwilling to accepting things as unchangeable. Lets try to change those things we find unacceptable. Like accepting politicians that lie, cheat, and defraud the people.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-23-2014, 18:38
Even if there is no political party representing your political views, there is the option of the spoilt vote.
It's not distributed to any party, winning or losing (at least, in my country) and you have the choice to express your opinion about politics, either through salamis or through emotional messages ("You are all scumbags!", "Long live the anarchy" and etc.).
Each U.S. presidential election Mickey Mouse receives thousands of votes -- and this despite the fact that write-ins are not allowed on some ballots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfgSEwjAeno
That's also a nice analysis of the wealth gap thing.
As for political systems, I'm still against FPTP. The possibility of coalitions makes it much easier for new parties to come up and even influence politics. Of course it still requires a population willing to vote for them and not vote on habit every time.
HoreTore
07-23-2014, 22:57
You either vote, or you run for election yourself.
Those are your only two moral options. All other choices makes you a lazy couch-warrior.
And before you all accuse me of hypocrisy; yes, I have done both.
Montmorency
07-24-2014, 02:08
Where is the flaw?
Democracy is a system fundamentally built upon compromise of peoples voices. Whilst sometimes there are arguments and one-side wins, it usually produces a system which reflects the wishes of those who vote/campaign/elect.
Therefore, if you do not take part, your wishes are not being reflected by your own choice, so complaining about it is pointless as it is your own fault your wishes are not being heard as you refuse to act.
So the way to be heard is to engage with the system and if the opinion is swayed too much in one direction, it is your duty to amend that with your voice.
This is different for those who do vote as they are actually engaging with the system, so when an MP is not representing them, they can give them the stick for not doing so. Voting is choosing to be heard.
You said:
If this view was a broad-consensus, then the system would change.
The argument is basically tautological: 'if things were better, then they would be better'. Add on the implicit 'it's your fault the world isn't perfect', and the head-up-buttitude becomes intolerable.
What do you think of this argument:
(The premise is that you getting rich is a good thing)
'Alright, everyone in the world ought to give me a penny. That way, I'll become rich for sure.'
...
'Hey, why don't you give me a penny, cheapskate? Don't you want me to get rich?'
The fact that you would be rich if everyone gave you money is totally irrelevant to any argument for giving you money. Any valid argument for giving you money could not rely on it.
a completely inoffensive name
07-24-2014, 02:42
The idea that when you feel that the options presented by the system are both terrible that you should refrain from voting is backwards. It relies on a sense of "enlightenment" that to abstain from speaking is better than being forced to choose between people that actively go against what you believe in. Idaho thinks that by refusing to participate in his government he is making the statement that the government has failed him.
The truth is that to not vote is an abandonment of your civic duty and a sign to both your fellow citizens and the political class that you have no expectations of having a functional liberal democratic government. This only emboldens political wolves to prey upon government excess and generate more of it for themselves and friends. By not voting Idaho is really making the statement, whether he acknowledges it or not, that he has failed his government.
Montmorency
07-24-2014, 03:05
The problem is, even if he does vote he will still have failed the government, and the government will still have failed him.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
07-24-2014, 03:53
The problem is, even if he does vote he will still have failed the government, and the government will still have failed him.
Then he should campaign for - something.
Actually, there's nothing really wrong with the UK system - people vote for who they want to vote for - people who are disillusioned or apathetic don't bother. You could tweak the method of vote-counting, selection of candidates etc. but the system basically works.
If everybody followed your line of reasoning we would never have abolished slavery - that was a decades-long fight which started with most people, in parliament or out of it, either thinking slavery was a good idea or not caring and ended with it being declared illegal and repugnant to basic human dignity.
William Wilberforce could have said, "oh nobody'll ever listen to be in parliament" and just sat there for years - but instead he spoke up in favour of banning slavery.
Idaho is saying - I don't like our politics and by my self I can't change it, so I'll just give up on the country rather than making an effort to persuade people.
There are people in the city who, on a Saturday afternoon, stand in the middle of the city centre and shout about what they care about through a microphone - I've seen them and on occasion I've stopped to listen.
Does Idaho do THAT?
Montmorency
07-24-2014, 04:59
If everybody followed your line of reasoning we would never have abolished slavery - that was a decades-long fight which started with most people, in parliament or out of it, either thinking slavery was a good idea or not caring and ended with it being declared illegal and repugnant to basic human dignity.
There isn't really a logical connection between these situations other than gradual social change as - something. But in fact, the slavery debate had a lot of economic impetus behind it, and certainly few commoners would have had the opportunity to own a slave, or even hire a servant. Can you see anything similar with voter turnout? Furthermore, at this stage in our history gradual change for voting will always meet reversals that wipe away small gains like a tide lapping at fruitless sandcastles, at best, and at worst will rapidly become obsolete as the structure of society changes radically. Yet another problem with the comparison is that things like abolition, feminism, queer pride, and so on are all about increasing the social inclusion of marginalized groups; voter turnout doesn't fit neatly into that model, as voting is already something most adults can do.
To be clear, this has been an explanation of why the comparison to the buildup of the abolitionist movement throughout the world doesn't serve you well.
Idaho is saying - I don't like our politics and by my self I can't change it, so I'll just give up on the country rather than making an effort to persuade people.
I never claimed to agree with Idaho's perspective - which he gives precious little exposition (here) anyway - nor to believe that an engaged popular vote is not useful. In fact, I'm rather inclined toward the opposite.
However -
There are people in the city who, on a Saturday afternoon, stand in the middle of the city centre and shout about what they care about through a microphone - I've seen them and on occasion I've stopped to listen.
Does Idaho do THAT?
Why is that useful and noble? The so-called "A for effort"?
But those who try and try with passion typically amount to either useless, clamorous fools or the worst leaders of the world.
I really would like to hear a cogent argument for why "voting is good", something besides the tired, self-aggrandizing confabulations or red herrings both sides seem to limit themselves to.
Pannonian
07-24-2014, 05:53
As for political systems, I'm still against FPTP. The possibility of coalitions makes it much easier for new parties to come up and even influence politics. Of course it still requires a population willing to vote for them and not vote on habit every time.
The FPTP system has led to some of the most tangible demonstrations of democracy in the UK, as people have teamed up and organised themselves to vote out particularly repulsive incumbents. The 1997 general election saw its first systematic use, as people, younger people especially, decided the Tories had to go, researched who was the most likely challenger in their constituency, and voted for them. The Tories lost 200 seats or so, with the Lib Dems doubling their total, and Labour picking up a landslide majority. A notably corrupt incumbent was replaced by an independent standing for anti-corruption (IIRC the first independent to be elected since the between-party Churchill in the 1930s), and the most likely replacement leader of the Tories went down against an openly gay Labour liberal. All of that was based on the FPTP system.
Ironside
07-24-2014, 08:08
Not voting is a petfectly fine choice. Being forced to vote is being forced to acknowledge the legitimacy of the system. So the option of not voting as a symbolic gesture is cruicial (imo) to having a real democracy. I vote in most elections at all levels, but I could see a scenario where I don't, though its unlikely.
There's still a difference between not voting at all and voting blank. Say that you had 70% voting rate in the US, but 20% of them blank voted (or voted for Mickey Mouse). That's still like the current 50% voting, but those 20% are both a threat and a promise. It's basically saying that you can win crushing victories if you give us what we want. Or we go to your opponent if they give us what we want.
Rhyfelwyr
07-24-2014, 09:09
I don't vote because because the very foundations that make democracy work no longer exist in this country. I believe in the idea of consensus-based democracy, where everybody can have their interests reflected by one government. On the other hand, I do not believe in the majority-rule democracy we have in the UK where society is comprised of various competing interest groups and the largest gets to impose its will on everybody else, even if it is to their detriment.
An example of this would be the recent benefit cuts - because the employed pay for the unemployed, the two have warring interests. This means that the government can only act in the interests of one when it acts against the interests of another (in the immediate sense at least - there is of course scope for longer-term economic reform). Because the employed are a majority, the government acts in their interests and as a result we get the benefit cuts and force a million people into food banks. That's an example of democracy in action being little short of evil. And as for the argument below:
If you don't vote you abdicate the right to complain about the result.
I would say the exact opposite is true. If you participate in the system, then you are assenting to it and showing that in your eyes it is legitimate. If you vote, you are saying that you accept the so-called 'democratic' process, and thus lose any right to complain about the result.
Now this doesn't mean I don't have any sense of civic duty. I do try to do my bit for society and in particular the more vulnerable in society, I just do not believe that the democratic process in any use in this regard. I prefer more grassroots action, eg. working with various civic/cultural organisations, helping aid projects, distributing Gospel tracts, etc.
a completely inoffensive name
07-24-2014, 09:29
You can't have consensus based democracy unless you already have a large degree of homogeneity.
The FPTP system has led to some of the most tangible demonstrations of democracy in the UK, as people have teamed up and organised themselves to vote out particularly repulsive incumbents. The 1997 general election saw its first systematic use, as people, younger people especially, decided the Tories had to go, researched who was the most likely challenger in their constituency, and voted for them. The Tories lost 200 seats or so, with the Lib Dems doubling their total, and Labour picking up a landslide majority. A notably corrupt incumbent was replaced by an independent standing for anti-corruption (IIRC the first independent to be elected since the between-party Churchill in the 1930s), and the most likely replacement leader of the Tories went down against an openly gay Labour liberal. All of that was based on the FPTP system.
That doesn't change the fact that it has a tendency towards a two-party system where a lot of the political spectrum is not really represented anymore.
Rhyfelwyr
07-24-2014, 10:26
You can't have consensus based democracy unless you already have a large degree of homogeneity.
Exactly.
The political process as we have it, is designed by those who benefit from it. It's a closed shop. The political consensus and agenda is set by the politicians and the media. Both of whom are completely paid for by the same, ever narrowing group of corporate interests.
Yes, now and again a target is taken down by the media. It's a token sacrifice. Sometimes the media takes a bigger bite. But we haven't seen any significant political change because of the media. Just a reshuffling of the same deck.
Politicians have been consolidating and centralising their powers for decades. We are more spied on than ever before. There are more people in prison. The police have powers of incarceration way beyond those they have ever had before. All this against a backdrop of a far safer society (it could be argued that this was *because* of these suppressions - but that is a different thread again).
I fear that people don't really want democracy. We are a species prone mainly to two destructive forces, laziness and despotism. Most people are more than willing to defer their rights to the few motivated despots. Politicians are the worst of us. Pvc, you have faith in the tory candidate for Exeter. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. Like all tories he is corruption waiting to happen.
Labour? They come from a more moral base, conceptually - to help poor people and not grind them into the ground. But they have sold out with Blair. Blair sold the party to the media and the corporations. He has his reward now. They are power and self justification waiting to happen.
Liberals are just incompetence and vanity waiting to happen. Useless twits.
Ukip are corruption, idiocy, vanity and power lust.
Green? Similar to liberals.
Left groups? Power and revenge fantasies.
The political process we have attracts the worst kind of person. Regardless of the political branding. We need to work on technology and philosophy that allows direct democracy and oversight without creating too much confusion and chaos. Our process is just a minor adaptation of that from the early victorian political compromise between the aristocracy and the rising industrial elite. Unfortunately this has now neatly fit into the requirements of the current economic elite.
I won't give my stamp of approval to this, nor will I try and join it. And I don't have the skill, motivation and economic strength to challenge it.
HoreTore
07-24-2014, 12:33
'Direct democracy'...? Could you explain what you refer to by that?
If it's an expanded swiss version(what 'direct democracy' usually refers to), I fail to see how binning compromise and turning every issue into a yes or no question improves our system.
As to being a candidate taking a lot of resources; it doesn't. Use a couple of your holiday weeks handing out stuff, and you're done. Do it by foot, and it's excellent exercise as well!
Pannonian
07-24-2014, 12:40
Idaho, I take it you're not interested in football. Or if you are, you're not familiar with the kind of thinking. Good times as well as bad. Support your team at all times. Do as much as you can to support them. You may lose, but the glory is found in the effort. There is even more glory to be found in making the effort when times were bad and hopeless.
I may not be able to make a difference individually (I'm not so much of an egomaniac to imagine that I matter more than 40 million other voters), but at least I'll make the effort. People better than me have struggled to gain the franchise for people like me. The least I can do in their memory is make use of it.
Pannonian
07-24-2014, 12:48
'Direct democracy'...? Could you explain what you refer to by that?
If it's an expanded swiss version(what 'direct democracy' usually refers to), I fail to see how binning compromise and turning every issue into a yes or no question improves our system.
As to being a candidate taking a lot of resources; it doesn't. Use a couple of your holiday weeks handing out stuff, and you're done. Do it by foot, and it's excellent exercise as well!
People who argue that their vote doesn't make a difference in the greater mass of things usually mean that they want their voice to have the decisive say. Basically direct exercisable power reflecting their thoughts, rather than an equal say to everyone who does care to have a say. They can't cope with the idea that their say does not necessarily prevail over others because they're saying it, but has to share consideration with others. Thus they dismiss everyone else as hopelessly tainted while their values are pure and untainted. That way they can get their say without having to face the responsibility of actually realising their arguments. Personally I admire all those past politicians who've made compromises with grubby reality to get their moral aims implemented. Lincoln is a wonderful film.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-24-2014, 13:40
Idaho chooses not to vote because he already feels disenfranchised -- rendering the act of voting itself rather moot.
He is taxed by a government that does not spend all of those dollars on meaningful public works, but allows an inordinate portion of those taxes to fund programs that benefit a specific industry or segment of the polity without adding much to the greater good (or adding but only in the most indirect of fashions).
He is constrained by laws that criminalize personal vices which do no significant harm to any person simply because that criminalization conforms to the moral consensus prevalent half a century in the past. His personal freedom has be unfairly diminished without adding to the greater good.
The current choices for governance appear to be limited to parties who are either ineffectual, self-defeatingly reactionary, or (for the mainstream) whose primary concern is the maintenance of their own political power -- even at the expense or curtailment of the moral and intellectual goals that form the "spiritual" focus of that party's founding -- that they have discarded, effectively, their own raisons d'etre.
In short, he views the current UK politiculture as being divorced from relevance and either unconcerned with, and sometimes actively detrimental to, the greater good of the polity. The trappings, traditions, and procedures enacted by those in power (whether enacted by design or through the unthinking assumption that this modus vivendi was as it should be) serve only to reify the current state of affairs. He has been rendered politically mute -- disenfranchised.
Since he is unwilling to simply decerebrate himself with Entertainment Tonight or Access Hollywood (supply local equivalent as needed), he finds himself trapped betwixt and between. He is not uncaring or dulled enough to cease caring nor is he willing to blithely support the current state of affairs. The answer is a small personal "vote" for civil disobedience -- an announced active choice to not participate.
I do not think that maintaining such a stance is psychologically healthy. In the long run Idaho will have to:
1) conform, support whichever party has enough of a vestige of "greater good" attached to it in his eyes to make it the least unpalatable.
2) become a candidate himself, publicly voicing his assessment of the state of affairs as is and establishing his candidacy on a return to true support of the greater good as he defines it (can work, but most such efforts become quixotic)
3) numb himself with media, religion, poetry, drink or what have you (this was Baudelaire's answer: "One should always be drunk...")
4) opt out of the current environment entirely and move to a English-speaking quasi-frontier where politics is as close to functionally irrelevant as possible (small town Alaska, the Montana hills, Canadian NW, or.... [cannot resist, too delicious]...northern Idaho)
Pannonian - Heh. There is an element of that.
Pannonian
07-24-2014, 13:49
In my memory, there have been at least 2 independent MPs elected in England, one standing against corruption, one to highlight the NHS's issues, particularly hospitals in the candidate's constituency. If there are other pressing issues, no doubt other candidates independent of the main parties can be elected as well.
In my memory, there have been at least 2 independent MPs elected in England, one standing against corruption, one to highlight the NHS's issues, particularly hospitals in the candidate's constituency. If there are other pressing issues, no doubt other candidates independent of the main parties can be elected as well.
The anti corruption candidate wasn't some average Joe. He was the senior political correspondent for one of the main tv channels.
The other was a doctor fighting an unpopular incumbent on a single issue platform of stopping the closure of the local hospital.
Thanks Seamus Fermanagh for support more eloquent and comprehensive than I deserve. :bow:
Pannonian
07-24-2014, 15:44
The anti corruption candidate wasn't some average Joe. He was the senior political correspondent for one of the main tv channels.
The other was a doctor fighting an unpopular incumbent on a single issue platform of stopping the closure of the local hospital.
They were without the party political machines of the main parties, yet gave their time to stand and were elected. IIRC some lady stood against Blair in 2005 as an independent and got several thousand votes, which gave her second place standing against an incumbent who was the PM of the country.
The doctor was certainly a bottom up, hard-work-wins story deserving of praise. The anti corruption media insider media circus, much less so.
Pannonian
07-24-2014, 16:11
I remembered some details wrong, but not the salient ones. Reg Keys got over 4000 votes standing as an independent for the Sedgefield constituency in the 2005 election (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/506.stm). Blair was elected with 24,000 votes, but Keys ran the Tory and Lib Dem candidates close. As a comparison, the UKIP candidate got 646 votes compared with Keys's 4252 votes.
You either vote, or you run for election yourself.
Those are your only two moral options. All other choices makes you a lazy couch-warrior.
And before you all accuse me of hypocrisy; yes, I have done both.
That, or you come to terms with every ballet having figurants. Fix it First, it's too broken.
Seamus Fermanagh
07-24-2014, 16:47
Thanks Seamus Fermanagh for support more eloquent and comprehensive than I deserve. :bow:
I don't have to agree with you to "get" your point and to give it credit. Everyone deserves to be heard, and listened to.
In addition, your posts in the past have made it abundantly clear that -- however differently you may conceive the "proper" answers to be than I -- you really do care. Kudos sir.
Whilst you may not agree with their policies. Both UKIP and the Tea Party are reactionary forces working within their respective political systems which is being backed by many non-typical voters and thus rendering respective change within their systems.
Democracy in process?
As for franchisement, you only get it when you work for it. When the women didn't have the vote, did they continue twiddling their thumbs? No, they got off their rears and campaigned for it, showing they were worthy and entitled to have their voices heard.
Whilst you dress it up eloquently, Seamus, it can paraphrased simply as: 'I don't feel like I am heard so I don't bother'. The solution to this is to make yourself heard. Therefore, the whole situation is a spiral, circular-logic. "I am not being heard, therefore I don't vote, I don't vote therefore I am not being heard", how does this cycle get broken? By making yourself heard and by voting, which makes government hear you.
Pannonian does touch on a common-trend called "Millennial Entitlement" but that is a different topic, in regards that it actually exists or not too.
Montmorency
07-24-2014, 19:53
Myself, I can only see two lasting possibilities in reform:
1. Compartmentalized hierarchy through anarcho-type decentralization (i.e. top-heavy and bottom-heavy)
2. Post-humanistic pure collectivism (i.e. collapse to a single level)
Voting as we conceive of it would only seem to figure in the first.
Pannonian
07-24-2014, 20:27
Myself, I can only see two lasting possibilities in reform:
1. Compartmentalized hierarchy through anarcho-type decentralization (i.e. top-heavy and bottom-heavy)
2. Post-humanistic pure collectivism (i.e. collapse to a single level)
Voting as we conceive of it would only seem to figure in the first.
What on earth does that mean?
If Idaho is disgusted by the disconnect between parliamentary parties and the general population, he can get involved in local government, where there is a shortage of willing candidates, and where just about everyone who wants to get involved can do so. It's also the shortest route between involvement and tangible results, with feedback being almost immediate. You want something done? Go and d it. The only limit is how much you can be bothered to do.
HoreTore
07-24-2014, 20:29
Fix it First
Then get off your lazy bum and fix it.
Montmorency
07-24-2014, 20:35
What on earth does that mean?
If Idaho is disgusted by the disconnect between parliamentary parties and the general population, he can get involved in local government, where there is a shortage of willing candidates, and where just about everyone who wants to get involved can do so. It's also the shortest route between involvement and tangible results, with feedback being almost immediate. You want something done? Go and d it. The only limit is how much you can be bothered to do.
So, isn't that PVC's position?
But what I was getting at in the last post was logical future possibilities for the structure of governance and the role voting might play in them.
Obviously, there are several assumptions, most importantly that no apocalyptic scenarios come about, and that things don't stay approximately the same as they are now.
Pannonian
07-24-2014, 20:47
So, isn't that PVC's position?
But what I was getting at in the last post was logical future possibilities for the structure of governance and the role voting might play in them.
Obviously, there are several assumptions, most importantly that no apocalyptic scenarios come about, and that things don't stay approximately the same as they are now.
At the lowest level of local government, you don't even need a single vote to get to participate in governance. All you need to do is turn up reliably so that you can get tasks assigned to you which you do, as well as discuss what gets done. Heck, they'd probably be happy if you just turn up occasionally and talk. I'm not such a contributive member of society, which is why I'm so grateful to those who are. I do read the local government's newsletters, so as to remind me of the good work they do. To not do anything relating to any level of government, then to pretend that's some kind of higher moral position, is an insult to those who work selflessly for the community.
HopAlongBunny
07-24-2014, 20:54
wrong topic
a completely inoffensive name
07-24-2014, 23:32
The political process as we have it, is designed by those who benefit from it. It's a closed shop. The political consensus and agenda is set by the politicians and the media. Both of whom are completely paid for by the same, ever narrowing group of corporate interests.
That is how it was for the US during the late 1800s, early 1900s and yet the Progressives managed to change it around through voting and government participation. During WW1 the US government locked up political leaders that spoke out against the war, I don't seem to recall that happening in the UK or US for the Iraq War. As I have said before, this response is a failure of the individual towards government and society in general because this whole mentality is not only that you can't make a difference but that people in general can not make a difference either (because they don't really want democracy amiright), which is a very unfair stance to hold. It just seems to be a stance that at its core is arrogant.
Cynicism is not wisdom, don't know what else to say.
Montmorency
07-25-2014, 04:30
Cynicism is not wisdom, don't know what else to say.
Cynicism purports to be the opposite of wisdom - that's the point.
Rhyfelwyr
07-25-2014, 08:30
I see a lot of rather speculative character attacks (laziness, arrogance, etc), but very little in the way of actually addressing what Idaho or myself have said. An example of missing the point in this way can be seen below:
Whilst you dress it up eloquently, Seamus, it can paraphrased simply as: 'I don't feel like I am heard so I don't bother'. The solution to this is to make yourself heard.
The thing is that we don't reckon that engaging in the democratic process is the way to be heard. The problem isn't so much with the principle of democracy, as it is with the underlying social (and by extension, political) situation in this country. Since society is made up of competing interest groups who gain only from the loss of the other, a government can only really work for one such interest group, it can't represent or act on behalf of all society at once. Look at the 70's/80's - all the government on the left or right did was effectively wage a class war against the losing side from the most recent elections. Nothing has changed today, all that has happened is that the right now has free reign to do what it wants.
Recognizing that the problems with our democracy are systematic and thus choosing not to take part in it does not make my lazy or arrogant. As I said earlier, for my part I prefer engaging in civil society at a more grassroots level - far less combatitive and much clearer results.
Next to each candidate on the ballot paper should be the words "and the status quo". The very act of voting is giving approval to the process and structure of our political system.
Am I just bitter because my voice isn't heard? Joking aside, no. I am a middle aged, middle class white man who earns well over the average salary. I am catered for very well by the status quo. I am not some downtrodden minority.
The technology of our political system is the problem. We could develop greater democracy. We could be innovative. But this would threaten the professional political class and creates uncertainty for their economic backers. Any change faces resistance of this most powerful alliance.
But the world is ours! It is not the elite's!
So it's all about Britain not having a pirate party?
As for the "technology", mayhaps, but apart from monetary concerns there are also downsides to more direct democracy such as lynch mobs and other guilty until proven innocent ideas being very popular.
Take our non-nuclear route for example, that one was not based on corporate interest of the elites, it was only decided after a lot of people demonstrated and demanded it. In fact Merkel had originally promised that the reactors could run for another decade or so and then turned around in the face of public opinion. The energy companies were not happy about that at all, but had to swallow it. It might have even cost some jobs in that sector, although the whole renewables sector also creates many jobs. Either way, at least here I do not really believe that the people have no power, they just have to make use of it.
We have one state where the greens have a majority IIRC, so even the two "established" parties are not all that established and can be challenged at the voting booth. And IMO that should happen more often as it is a wake up call for them to listen more to the people. However, if all the people who do not like the established parties do not vote at all, this becomes far less likely to happen.
And that is why I find it relatively important to vote, to bring more dynamic into the political system, to show politicians that the people will not tolerate corruption etc. and will vote for another party or a completely new one if the established parties keep selling out. However, that only works if the people are actually educated (I was in a publich school and certainly not brainwashed by the government there) and put in at least a little bit of effort to change things. The worst voters are the ones who vote for parties out of habit or don't vote at all. They both contribute to the status quo.
And this is also why I do not like FPTP, because it is stacked against all the smaller parties as can be seen in the USA. Here it makes sense to vote for them as they might at least get into a coalition or in the worst case prevent a government formation if the established parties refuse to work with them. But either way we have the means to show that we do not like what is currently happening in the government while the citizens of the USA can only vote for two sides of the same coin. The requirement of course is that we actually make use of that power.
Of course living in a nation state also means that you may not agree with the majority but I heard nation states are the greatest thing ever, so we can't change that.
Pannonian
07-25-2014, 10:13
Next to each candidate on the ballot paper should be the words "and the status quo". The very act of voting is giving approval to the process and structure of our political system.
Am I just bitter because my voice isn't heard? Joking aside, no. I am a middle aged, middle class white man who earns well over the average salary. I am catered for very well by the status quo. I am not some downtrodden minority.
The technology of our political system is the problem. We could develop greater democracy. We could be innovative. But this would threaten the professional political class and creates uncertainty for their economic backers. Any change faces resistance of this most powerful alliance.
But the world is ours! It is not the elite's!
So hop over to your local council's meetings and give of your time and effort to improve things at a local level. You won't be deciding on where this million or that million of tax money will be spent, but you can help make £100 or so be used more efficiently, saving a few pennies on each person affected so that the money can be spread to help that one or two people more. When they hold fetes and the like, do your bit to make them work and to help people enjoy them. I greatly admire the Woman's Institutes for the efforts they've made to build their Jerusalem on England's green and pleasant land, and I take their attitude as one to aspire to.
Pannonian
07-25-2014, 10:18
And this is also why I do not like FPTP, because it is stacked against all the smaller parties as can be seen in the USA. Here it makes sense to vote for them as they might at least get into a coalition or in the worst case prevent a government formation if the established parties refuse to work with them. But either way we have the means to show that we do not like what is currently happening in the government while the citizens of the USA can only vote for two sides of the same coin. The requirement of course is that we actually make use of that power.
Reg Keys, General Election 2005, Sedgefield (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jShN7F-q-nY)
An independent candidate does not get elected, but he gets his say on election day as does every other candidate, and every other candidate has to stand there and listen to him have his say.
Montmorency
07-25-2014, 12:10
The requirement of course is that we actually make use of that power.
We might speak of the "potential energy" of a mobilized public, but the problem is that mobilization is of a typically highly-diffuse group that shares as its only uniting factor common citizenship in a certain state, and is almost always fueled by rage or panic, toward short-term (and perhaps short-sighted) solutions, is probably not as noble a goal as it might seem.
Reflexive reactions associated with anger or fear are of course evolutionarily advantageous, engaging us to swerve out of oncoming traffic or avoid a falling object, at this point in our history we must acknowledge that its usefulness has run out. We must, if possible, modify our physiology in such a way as to change this response, such that immediate danger can be recognized accurately and quickly, but without the concomitant sensitization, sensory neglect, and contextual collapse/convergence. This will make our actions what could be called "better-considered" for longer periods of time during stressful situations. The downside would likely be considerably-increased metabolic expense, but at this point I think a few more humans starving to death under extreme conditions would be a small price to pay for cognitive efficiency.
But the world is ours! It is not the elite's!
I'm not sure I like this story of some generic masses being compartmentalized away from "the elites". To be extreme, we might consider the "masses" to be their own guards at a free-range labor camp.
Elites are not distinct from the masses, then, but rather hold concentrated resources of various sorts that make them relatively influential within the camp. What you seek is to homogenize their influence, but it's difficult to see how this could be achieved without homogenizing individual resources, presumably every single day or every few hours, and that's a pretty huge and well-known can of worms.
Ultimately though, any moralistic - or morally-grounded - argument for a particular sort of governance is doomed to be short-lived and inconsistent with itself. My stance on the inadequacy of current power politics and wealth politics is simply that "elites" are still large and diffuse as a group, in some ways even more diffuse than the masses (really, as pointed out, Masses - Elites), and yet bent toward a narrower set of goals and priorities, leading to ineffective and uncoordinated governance of any sort.
What must be done, I believe, is for an absolute technocracy to assume power over all governance in the entire world, to establish and affirm certain overarching goals and priorities as part of this governance, and oversee the fruition of its own meta-goal (e.g. post-humanism). The one way I can think of to safeguard such an arrangement - never mind reaching the point in the first place - would be to fund the development of an army of robotic overseers, which for the duration of the process toward the meta-goal would ensure that the technocrats, being individually replaced from time to time as all humans must be, "stay on task", so to speak.
Now, the problem of reaching the opening of this stage: perhaps voting has its part to play in the process, in which a short-term swing towards the left-wing (so we must work to manage any nascent transition from rightist hegemony to leftist hegemony) will allow the democratic instantiation of an ever-more centralized state, in which the new leftist governments would allow the appropriate technocrats scope and resources to operate.
Yes, it seems a conspiracy would be necessary at some point, but hopefully the interval outside relative openness should be short enough - a few years - that the program could not be stopped if and once discovered.
Pannonian
07-25-2014, 13:45
I'm wondering how to square this:
I have told Idaho several times that if he stands, I will run his campaign - I will go door to door and ask people to vote for him - I will run a campaign persuading people to register in the city to vote...
Idaho pointed out he can't afford the fee to enter as a candidate - that's a valid point but it's seperate from his main objection.
with this:
Am I just bitter because my voice isn't heard? Joking aside, no. I am a middle aged, middle class white man who earns well over the average salary. I am catered for very well by the status quo. I am not some downtrodden minority.
The deposit for standing for Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/standing/) is £500. If Idaho earns well over the average salary, that shouldn't be too much of a stretch, and I'd imagine that he spends well over that for a holiday. There needn't be much in the way of running costs, as PVC has volunteered to run the campaign for him, and in any case all valid candidates are given some resources to help with their campaigns.
"In order to become a 'validly nominated' candidate, which means your name will appear on a ballot paper, you need to submit a completed set of nomination forms together with a deposit of £500 to the (Acting) Returning Officer before 4pm on the deadline day for nominations.
As a 'validly nominated' candidate you will be entitled to free postage for one election communication to electors in your constituency, as well as the use of certain rooms to hold public meetings."
Reg Keys, General Election 2005, Sedgefield (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jShN7F-q-nY)
An independent candidate does not get elected, but he gets his say on election day as does every other candidate, and every other candidate has to stand there and listen to him have his say.
Apparently the UK uses FPTP in a different way than the US does, as in you use it for the election of single MPs but it's not the deciding factor for the ruling party, otherwise I do not understand why you have coalitions on a national level.
I don't think you can merge two MPs to get one who represents both MPs' views so that's a bit different. Why does hardly anyone in the US vote for parties other than the Republicans or the Democrats? Do 98% of the country love either of those two parties that much?
We might speak of the "potential energy" of a mobilized public, but the problem is that mobilization is of a typically highly-diffuse group that shares as its only uniting factor common citizenship in a certain state, and is almost always fueled by rage or panic, toward short-term (and perhaps short-sighted) solutions, is probably not as noble a goal as it might seem.
Reflexive reactions associated with anger or fear are of course evolutionarily advantageous, engaging us to swerve out of oncoming traffic or avoid a falling object, at this point in our history we must acknowledge that its usefulness has run out. We must, if possible, modify our physiology in such a way as to change this response, such that immediate danger can be recognized accurately and quickly, but without the concomitant sensitization, sensory neglect, and contextual collapse/convergence. This will make our actions what could be called "better-considered" for longer periods of time during stressful situations. The downside would likely be considerably-increased metabolic expense, but at this point I think a few more humans starving to death under extreme conditions would be a small price to pay for cognitive efficiency.
Yes, I think a good way to achieve that is a good education.
The Lurker Below
07-25-2014, 16:10
Why does hardly anyone in the US vote for parties other than the Republicans or the Democrats? Do 98% of the country love either of those two parties that much?
We're taught in school that if we don't have the answer on a multiple guess test to always choose C. Adding more than two options to the election ballot would confuse us too much, we'd all choose C, and the parties would break down into fisticuffs over whose name gets into the C slot.
Montmorency
07-25-2014, 17:18
Yes, I think a good way to achieve that is a good education.
Why/how?
Fisherking
07-25-2014, 17:41
It is not very interesting to vote when you see the choice as only the possible lesser of two evils or when you see all the mainstream parties as standing for the status quo.
If someone is taken down by the media it is usually because they are not from the in group. They are presented as weird and marginalized. It doesn’t mean they were good, it just means they didn’t go along with the agenda. This requires not coordinated conspiracy. Merely what is good for the corporate or overall business interests of the organizations involved.
You want more people to vote? Add None of the Above to the ballot and enforce it by not allowing those candidates to run again if defeated in a follow one election.
I'm wondering how to square this:
with this:
The deposit for standing for Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/standing/) is £500. If Idaho earns well over the average salary, that shouldn't be too much of a stretch, and I'd imagine that he spends well over that for a holiday. There needn't be much in the way of running costs, as PVC has volunteered to run the campaign for him, and in any case all valid candidates are given some resources to help with their campaigns.
"In order to become a 'validly nominated' candidate, which means your name will appear on a ballot paper, you need to submit a completed set of nomination forms together with a deposit of £500 to the (Acting) Returning Officer before 4pm on the deadline day for nominations.
As a 'validly nominated' candidate you will be entitled to free postage for one election communication to electors in your constituency, as well as the use of certain rooms to hold public meetings."
I can afford to throw away £500 and can afford to waste a month on a campaign that won't go anywhere. But I'm not sure what the point is. I don't think my family will appreciate it. I don't want to be one of the 650 MPs. I don't want to be famous. I don't want press intrusion on my life. I don't see your point.
HopAlongBunny
07-25-2014, 20:34
Your point of view is actually anticipated and expected.
In a pluralist democracy all viewpoints compete in an open market; it is a feature of the system that some will chose not to participate.
In some versions of the theory, full participation is actually thought destructive of good governance.
Rejoice! All systems working as intended
Pannonian
07-25-2014, 20:41
I can afford to throw away £500 and can afford to waste a month on a campaign that won't go anywhere. But I'm not sure what the point is. I don't think my family will appreciate it. I don't want to be one of the 650 MPs. I don't want to be famous. I don't want press intrusion on my life. I don't see your point.
Maybe the problem is HIGNFY and its adherents who seek to mock and destroy without contemplating the worth of trying to build something constructive in its stead. There is always the local council if you're interested in contributing towards society without media intrusion into your private life.
Why/how?
Because a good education teaches critical thinking and certain values such as democratic values. I t shows people the options they have, teaches them how to make a good choice and how top see more than the obvious propaganda. At least I like to think that this is what my education taught me.
I was on a public school and we even learned to be critical of the media, exemplified by a picture from (IIRC) the Kohl years that was "photoshopped" to remove a bunch of protest signs from a visit of the US president because such negativity did not suit our government at the time. That's also one of the reasons I do not believe that public education necessarily means you become a pro-government puppet because a good education just teaches you how to think for yourself and especially to be able to think critically.
The following saying is also true for voting IMO: "Studpidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
The more educated a population is, the fewer lies and deceptions it should believe from politicians, e.g. trickle down.
Maybe the problem is HIGNFY and its adherents who seek to mock and destroy without contemplating the worth of trying to build something constructive in its stead. There is always the local council if you're interested in contributing towards society without media intrusion into your private life.
We have been shaped into cynicism by close observation of our politicians. We have ceased to see them as great men answering a higher calling, and now see the truth - failed wannabes, skilled in blame dodging and band wagon jumping, with no more vision of the future than any other robber or scoundrel.
Pannonian
07-26-2014, 03:23
We have been shaped into cynicism by close observation of our politicians. We have ceased to see them as great men answering a higher calling, and now see the truth - failed wannabes, skilled in blame dodging and band wagon jumping, with no more vision of the future than any other robber or scoundrel.
And because this kind of attitude helps matters. One of the scandalous politicians of the 20th century, David Lloyd George, disgraced for selling peerages and for later dodgy views on the international scene, also kickstarted what would develop into the welfare state. Should I take your lead and despise him for his corruption? Or should I appreciate the social work which he did, the fruits of which are available to me even now?
There is also that alternative which I suggested, if you're so disgusted with existing politicians and reckon you can do better, but don't want media attention. Get involved with local government.
Montmorency
07-26-2014, 12:00
Because a good education teaches critical thinking and certain values such as democratic values. I t shows people the options they have, teaches them how to make a good choice and how top see more than the obvious propaganda. At least I like to think that this is what my education taught me.
I would contest that education actually prevents or diminishes the sort of hasty planning characteristic of anger and fear, physiologically-speaking.
Certainly not to the extent necessary for stable-yet-inclusive governance, and hopefully not to the extent that can be achieved by impinging directly on the source.
We already know that education does not provide a good predictor of the efficacy of personal decisions or perspectives, that education often merely allows one to convince oneself in more detailed terms. Why should we take as a precept - and this is an open empirical question - that education decreases cognitive and behavioral impulsivity?
I would contest that education actually prevents or diminishes the sort of hasty planning characteristic of anger and fear, physiologically-speaking.
Physiologically speaking maybe, yes, but I would like to think that people who can actually distinguish between actual danger and perceived danger would show less of a fear reaction when it comes to politics. I find that knowing more about certain threats and how threatening they actually are changes my fear of certain things. For example I'm less afraid of terrorists than I am of bacteria or even cars. It's more likely that one gets run over by a car than to die in a terrorist attack, maybe depending on where one works or lives of course. As a result my voting pattern is probably less influenced by fear of terrorism than the voting patterns of some other people who, IMO, have a wrong perception due to a lack of knowledge on what is actually more threatening to them.
Education changes perception and perception affects the triggering of our basic fear and anger levels. Changing our physiology to reduce the impact of those primal reactions seems like a much harder task to me than simply providing people with relevant information and making them think about it to change their perception.
a completely inoffensive name
07-27-2014, 04:43
We have been shaped into cynicism by close observation of our politicians. We have ceased to see them as great men answering a higher calling, and now see the truth - failed wannabes, skilled in blame dodging and band wagon jumping, with no more vision of the future than any other robber or scoundrel.
When have we ever seen politicians as great men? I seem to recall the writer of the Declaration of Independence being called a sexual deviant with his slaves just a few decades later.
Politics have always been a dirty game that disgusts anyone with moral fiber. The citizens had to fight to even be let in on the game and I can't think of a time in any country when people were completely satisfied with their governing body.
Also, point of clarification to Rhy, I was not calling Idaho arrogant, and I apologize if it came across like that. I said that that particular view/philosophy seems arrogant, just as I can think Ayn Rand's view is disgusting and obnoxious without actually thinking my best friend (who loves Atlas Shrugged) is any of that.
Papewaio
07-28-2014, 03:03
We have been shaped into cynicism by close observation of our politicians. We have ceased to see them as great men answering a higher calling, and now see the truth - failed wannabes, skilled in blame dodging and band wagon jumping, with no more vision of the future than any other robber or scoundrel.
So are you saying that it too high a bar to beat?
Scrawling like a three year old tsk, tsk, tsk.
Furunculus
07-28-2014, 12:49
i live in an area that will never elect a tory (or labour for that matter), so you'd think i'd be fuming at my 'wasted vote' under FPTP.
however, since i quite like adversarial politics and parties that adopt country-wide electoral positions, i find myself quite content with the result.
ICantSpellDawg
07-29-2014, 02:18
I encourage everyone not to vote. The fewer people that I can get to vote, the more my individual vote matters.
Papewaio
07-29-2014, 02:24
I encourage everyone not to vote. The fewer people that I can get to vote, the more my individual vote matters.
You could appy that to owning guns too...
ICantSpellDawg
07-29-2014, 02:33
You could appy that to owning guns too...
The heart wants what it wants. I want comrades more than I want safety.
Papewaio
07-29-2014, 02:59
The heart wants what it wants. I want comrades more than I want safety.
Well that also applies to voting.
As the saying goes in a certain FPS I play "teamwork is OP".
I encourage everyone not to vote. The fewer people that I can get to vote, the more my individual vote matters.
:laugh4:
So you want to make people feel disenfranchised and at the same time tell them to get armed. Are you looking forward to that civil war?
ICantSpellDawg
07-29-2014, 11:56
:laugh4:
So you want to make people feel disenfranchised and at the same time tell them to get armed. Are you looking forward to that civil war?
No, most of what I say is half true, if that.
I encourage everyone to vote and become involved in politics, even when they disagree with me.
I discourage firearms ownership among my friends who drink, have another substance abuse problem, are hotheads, seem prone to depression. I advise anyone with children to keep firearms either out of the house or locked away like Fort Knox.
But anyone not on this list through these things has a civic duty to bear arms and to vote.
No, most of what I say is half true, if that.
I encourage everyone to vote and become involved in politics, even when they disagree with me.
I discourage firearms ownership among my friends who drink, have another substance abuse problem, are hotheads, seem prone to depression. I advise anyone with children to keep firearms either out of the house or locked away like Fort Knox.
But anyone not on this list through these things has a civic duty to bear arms and to vote.
The smiley was meant to say that your comment was genuinely funny, I didn't take it as 100% serious.
Otherwise you are spot on of course (http://almostdorothy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bear-arms.jpg).
a completely inoffensive name
08-14-2014, 12:13
I encourage everyone not to vote. The fewer people that I can get to vote, the more my individual vote matters.
That strategy only works if the people you encourage are from your state. Otherwise it doesn't matter due to the wonderful electoral college.
No, most of what I say is half true, if that.
I encourage everyone to vote and become involved in politics, even when they disagree with me.
I discourage firearms ownership among my friends who drink, have another substance abuse problem, are hotheads, seem prone to depression. I advise anyone with children to keep firearms either out of the house or locked away like Fort Knox.
But anyone not on this list through these things has a civic duty to bear arms and to vote.
Why do you have to remind me that you are in fact a reasonable human being at times?
This is an interesting video for the issues with FPTP system, part of why some here might feel disenfranchised and why I for example, advocate more STV style voting.
http://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
This is an interesting video for the issues with FPTP system, part of why some here might feel disenfranchised and why I for example, advocate more STV style voting.
http://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
Good luck getting a reply, I've posted that multiple times already but FPTP people seem too indoctrinated to care while their votting system is destroying their country and taking away their liberties!!!
It's actually a series of videos (http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/) that also explains the other issues that FPTP countries have.
People will never get around the truth that the only perfect country Americans ever designed is modern Germany!
Papewaio
08-21-2014, 08:50
I wonder what system Australia uses? ~:smoking:
Pannonian
08-21-2014, 16:20
This is an interesting video for the issues with FPTP system, part of why some here might feel disenfranchised and why I for example, advocate more STV style voting.
The video is slightly inaccurate. Even in the FPTP system that is the British democracy, the winner still needs >50% of the votes to win. The votes being those of the MPs. The party with the most MPs gets first dibs on forming a government. If they have more than 50% of the MPs, that's a majority by themselves, and they deserve to form a government. If they have less than 50%, they have to talk to other parties to get them over that mark. And even if they have more than 50%, they still have to have a margin over that to allow for dissent on controversial issues. Otherwise you have things like the Major government, which faced cross-bench revolts on a regular basis. Even the current government can face the same kind of paralysis if the Lib Dems concertedly withdrew their support, forcing the Tories to look elsewhere for their >50%.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.