So what is the point in democrazy for me?

So, these new engines where you answer question and then get to see wich party is most close to you that has popped up the last 3 elections are GREAT!

They do actually ask the important questions, and you also get to state now only what you answer, but how important the specific questions is for you.

So far so well.

Now, my problem is that NO, not a single, party agrees with me on more than 50% of the questions.

Now, this is in sweden where we have 10 partys, I shiver when I think of what would happen in the US with 2 partys...

Ironicly, the 2 closest partys I have is the far right wing one (1) and the far left one (2).

Excellent...

So basicly, no matter how I vote, my beliefs wont even be represented in HALF the questions.

So what is the point in voting?

I dont go by traditional left/right thinking when I vote, I just consider what is logical from what I have seen of the world.

basicly, my vote, if it were to have any point, would be a vote AGAINST some party, not for some party, but is that really a functioning mindset when you vote?

Maybe this is just a rant, but it is a real problem I have. Help me please, or is demorazy just... ... ...

Unless this is just a thread for ranting against democrazy, bring up another option that you think is better. It isn't news to anyone that democrazy has it's major flaws.

You could try Republican'tism.

Proletariat, actually, the thread is about how I can find a reason to go vote.

But if you want an alternative, how about public voting in each and every question? With the information technology we have today it wouldnt be hard. Then political partys wouldnt really be needed, either.

or, a consortium of scientists making the scientific most valid decisions, based on science?

Just two ideas that springs to mind...


Sasaki Kojiro, elaborate?

Meh, I never liked democracy myself. A good strong leader with a solid, non-paranoid successor what I support. No-one would be better for Russia then Putin, and I hope he has a good successor in mind...

I wonder when this authoritarianism will die in Russia. Others may say we cannot govern ourselves, but hey, look at America... With so many mediocre imbeciles who have never read any news other than celebrity gossip, it is a wonder it managed to turn out so well. Then again, people of the past were slightly better educated and certainly better informed, although there was always that majority of poor, uneducated unskilled workers. Despite everything, the middle class no longer values politics as it did in its political height, the 1800s...

Oh I get it. Instead of democracy he spelled it democrazy. Clever little sweede, this one.

Aemilius Paulus, the USA does as good as it is because of the american dream... Once people start realise the dream wont come to them eventhough they have 3 jobs, things will change.

SFTS, pun intended :yes:

You can write in silly things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

You can write in silly things.

---

? ?

At least in the US there is a "write in" section on the ballot. You can put anything you'd like there.

If I wasn't lazy I'd take the time to write something offensive or silly. I think I won't bother.

Wjy not? Its fekin easy and not doing so when given the chance is plain stupid, unless you want to be some kind of crazy matyr to the cause of anti-democracy?

Does it really matter if I vote or not if I'm just going to write in "Lizard People"?

when i can vote i will write in "the octo-squids"

Colbert/Stewart 2012!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

a consortium of scientists making the scientific most valid decisions, based on science?

---

Britain has spent the last 12 years experimenting with the technocrat state who operate the levers of power from the multitude of quangos in which they breed.

The result has not been good to say the least, they are not disinterested experts but in fact flawed humans who usually have an agenda, which is fine except that their agenda is not necessarily the same as that of the people at large, and sadly quangos do not operate with democratic control.

So the cratos is not wielded by the demos, a situation that is generally described as a democratic deficit, or a lack of democracy if you will.

50% agreement is good enough for me. There are many things I disagree with with the party I am voting for. If you are 50% of both part of the extreme, maybe the middle has something for you.

50% agreement is a tremendously high number.

Democracy is not about getting your way. It is about finding a decent common ground in a hugely complex pluriform society, one that leaves others their own as well. If you can have it your way half the time, then that is great.

Heck, I'd be happy if I'd manage 50% in marriage. And that's just two people.

Well, nobody stops you from starting your own party :shrug: I assume you won't disagree with yourself.

Don't judge what parties will agree/disagree with you based on what some quiz says - go to their websites and read their policies. It's always better to go straight to the source if you can.

The question of voting against the worst party is a more interesting and important question. In Australia we are forced to make this choice every time we vote in a Federal election (Compulsory voting with a colmpulsory preferential voting) and to be honest, it isn't entirely unnatural to be concerned by it. It is going to happen when there is a rather small framework of debate that society will operate under - you just either have to accept it, or find a way to shift the debate so that the major parties will address those issues most critically important to yourself. The best way is to form your own party, but I accept that isn't really going to be possible for most people. The second best way is to look towards political activism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Unless this is just a thread for ranting against democrazy, bring up another option that you think is better.

---

More or less that, since Sweden isn't stuck in a two party system like the US, you could for example try to find others who think like you and start your own party to represent the gap you found and try to represent your mix of believes that no other party represents. Or you could try to vote for one of the two closest parties and hope to force them into a coalition that will have to compromise roughly where you stand. ~D
Or you could not vote at all and thus make your frustration obvious, a low voter turnout is often presented as people not being involved in politics but IMO can also mean that people are not very fond of the existing parties and their programmes.

Of course starting your own party isn't all that easy and you may end up not finding enough people who agree with you but in that case voting for a party that does what you want would be voting for a party noone else votes for anyway, which might be exactly why there is no such party. :shrug:

Not voting at all = (practically speaking) a vote for the winner, with no right of feedback or protest.

That is crazy, in my book.

More food for thought:

- Even if you find a party that agrees 100%, this party needs to find an electoral majority to implement these policies. And even if it finds this majority, democracy will still demand that a working, decent compromise is reached upon with the minority. In effect, unless one lives in an ant colony, you will not get your way 100%, and you'll have to live with opinions that are not your own.

- Which is not a problem, but a blessing. Democracy is both a workable solution to, and the establishment of, a pluriform, vibrant society of free people. Difference of opinion is the origin and also the very goal of democracy. This diversity, this respect for diverging opinion and choices, is known as freedom. This freedom, this constant debate and flow of ideas is what makes democracy so stable and powerful. Quite brilliant, really. There is a system behind the madness. It is controlled chaos. Fascists, communists, dictators and their following always overlook this aspect of democracy. Strength lies in disagreement, not in towing the line.
'With us or against us' - no single sentence could be a greater attack on both the freedom, and the strenght of a democratic society.

-Some people are smarter than you, more experienced than you. Not all of one's points of view would stand the test of reality and those of good governance, and will hence be a rare find amongst moderate parties. For example, I do not think I'll ever find a party that agrees with me that we should print more money without inflation, that way we will all be richer!!!

Alexander the pretty good, we used to have blanc votes in Sweden. These were intended for people who wanted to vote but had no olitical party they approevd of. The numbers of blanc votes were counted and reported. However, in the last 2 elections they changed this and the blanc votes are just thrown away. Otherwise that would have been an option (now I can aswell throw away my voice from home).

Furunculus, that experiment was only on one question, and it wasnt made very properly. I am sure a technocraty would have better rules and guidelines.

Fragony, you would think that the middle had something, but in effect, they are even further from my political standpoint. And NO less than 50% representation of my ideas is not good enough, how can it be? It means that whatever party I pick will go AGAINST my interests in MOST questions. Can you make a reasonable defense as to why I would vote for a party that, in most questions, fights against my interests?

Andre, true, I could start my own party. I'm not bothered enough though. Politics concern me very little, maybe it would be different if I had kids or were unsure about my work.

CountArach, I have of course read the partys webpages... Problem is that there are 4 topics of severe importance to me. And no party agrees with me on all four, as they are to based on left/right thinking (like, you cant be against immigration AND against an EU army, as those questions are on opposing sides of the political scale). I must say I highly dislike the political scale, the days of ideology is dead, I just want working solutions.

KukriKhan, yes, not voting at all is a voet for the winner... But why should I be bothered when the two biggest partys representing left and right are about equally close to me? Whatever party wins will work against my interests. Even whatever SIDE or BLOCK wins will work against my interests.

Louis VI the Fat, yes indeed, some people are smarter and more experienced than me. However, 95% of the population is not smarter than me.

@Kandahar_AV, if you don't mind me saying I think Sweden is the most confused country in the world right now. You need a ' populist right' in Sweden, and that is in no way a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

@Kandahar_AV, if you don't mind me saying I think Sweden is the most confused country in the world right now. You need a ' populist right' in Sweden, and that is in no way a bad thing.

---

Dragony, the populist right is leading the country. They threw the social-democrats out in the last election. Think you need to update your sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Dragony, the populist right is leading the country. They threw the social-democrats out in the last election. Think you need to update your sources.

---

Hey cool, humour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Not voting at all = (practically speaking) a vote for the winner, with no right of feedback or protest.

That is crazy, in my book.

---

So is a vote for the Lizard People-Octosquid coalition a vote for the winner, or does that "count"?

Though I still think it's crazy that you "can't complain". If you vote for the winner, does that mean you have no right to feedback or protest? IE, no one who voted for Bush could object to any of his policies after the election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Does it really matter if I vote or not if I'm just going to write in "Lizard People"?

---

Would you say that it's the same if there's 50% of the population voting R or D, compared to 80% voting with 30% units of them voting for the lizard people?

After all, the results on paper will be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Meh, I never liked democracy myself. A good strong leader with a solid, non-paranoid successor what I support. No-one would be better for Russia then Putin, and I hope he has a good successor in mind...

I wonder when this authoritarianism will die in Russia. Others may say we cannot govern ourselves, but hey, look at America... With so many mediocre imbeciles who have never read any news other than celebrity gossip, it is a wonder it managed to turn out so well. Then again, people of the past were slightly better educated and certainly better informed, although there was always that majority of poor, uneducated unskilled workers. Despite everything, the middle class no longer values politics as it did in its political height, the 1800s...

---

The big worrying moment about authoritarianism is when they stop the free media. The media might be a lousy watch dog, but they are the most important one we have, keeping corruption, neopotism and simular bad stuff down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

So is a vote for the Lizard People-Octosquid coalition a vote for the winner, or does that "count"?

Though I still think it's crazy that you "can't complain". If you vote for the winner, does that mean you have no right to feedback or protest? IE, no one who voted for Bush could object to any of his policies after the election?

---

Almost... anyone who didn't vote at all (though eligible) practically speaking, voted for Bush, but has/had no standing to complain about anything he did.

Citizens who voted for him, and those who voted but not for him (including for the Lizard People-Octosquid coalition) = right to complain. In Kukri-Law.

Thus: Exercise your franchise, or: sit down, strap up, hold on, and be quiet during this ride, because you didn't care enough to participate as a citizen. Therefore, by default, you are not a citizen, but a subject. A ride-along. A consenter-by-silence.

But it's OK... millions of men (and women) have fought. And killed. And died. For centuries for the right of residents to observe their rights, or to ignore them, as they see fit, as if they didn't matter. Just because the choices offered didn't suit their particular taste, like a filet mignon lover, desperately searching the menu of a sushi bar for something he/she can stomach.

One of my fondest, and most vivid, memories is guarding VIth Army HQ in San Franciso, with an unloaded M16 and sheathed bayonet, against residents who (probably, in my estimation) had never voted, or served jury duty or military service... nevertheless being (kinda) peaceably assembled to exercise their free speech rights; and they not being stopped, hurt, or otherwise thwarted. They had that right, guaranteed on paper, and reinforced by an armed force that they loathed.

It was OK then, and it is now.

But: vote, sez I. Or throw away your freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Thus: Exercise your franchise, or: sit down, strap up, hold on, and be quiet during this ride, because you didn't care enough to participate as a citizen. Therefore, by default, you are not a citizen, but a subject. A ride-along. A consenter-by-silence.

---

How would you suggest someone dissent then? Not just to the current government but to the current system?