Voting is Pointless because I have a strong-interest in Democracy

[Husar]

Reg Keys, General Election 2005, Sedgefield

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]

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]

Yes, I think a good way to achieve that is a good education.

Why/how?

[Fisherking]

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.

[Idaho]

I'm wondering how to square this:

with this:

The deposit for standing for Parliament 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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Idaho]

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]

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]

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?

[Husar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I encourage everyone not to vote. The fewer people that I can get to vote, the more my individual vote matters.

[Papewaio]

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]

You could appy that to owning guns too...

The heart wants what it wants. I want comrades more than I want safety.

[Papewaio]

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".

[Husar]

I encourage everyone not to vote. The fewer people that I can get to vote, the more my individual vote matters.

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]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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?

[Beskar]

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.

[Husar]

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.

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 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]

I wonder what system Australia uses?

[Pannonian]

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%.