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

[Pannonian]

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

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]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?