Topic: Voting Is A Waste of Time

[nickclone]

I'm supposed to vote today, but I don't give two shits about voting. I disenfranchised as a young, black person living in Virginia (a red state, almost 50/50, but not quite). The very first time I voted was in the 2004 elections and I learned then that you should never bet against the house. Sure, the Dems won the house, but with Bush still drunk driving behind the wheel this country can't go anywhere other than a ditch off of some dirt road. So I'm not going to vote anymore other than presidential elections and maybe the primaries. I've heard all the shit about "every vote counts" and it does, it just doesn't count enough for me to get out of bed, wait in the cold and be disappointed time and time again.

So, how do the rest of you feel about voting?

[Pugnate]

I think it is important... even if it is two candidates you don't like. Actually it is especially then... at least the lesser of two evils comes in.

[nickclone]

I think it is important... even if it is two candidates you don't like. Actually it is especially then... at least the lesser of two evils comes in.

Yes, but its always the lesser of two evils, it doesn't change anything. I believe that if Bush hadn't been elected we wouldn't be in the state we're in now. However I voted against him and it didn't do any good, just as if I voted for someone who deserves it and makes it into office wasn't my doing.

[Pugnate]

One vote doesn't make a difference, but thousands do... and if thousands started thinking along those lines then who knows who might get elected?

[Cobra951]

I now feels as you do, nick.  I didn't use to.  Only the 2 big parties are ever going to dominate the government.  And regardless of which of the 2 big parties you vote for, you are voting for big, corrupt government.  Voting for a third option may be a statement, and if it's important to you, by all means do it.  It won't matter to anyone or anything else.

[nickclone]

I now feels as you do, nick.  I didn't use to.  Only the 2 big parties are ever going to dominate the government.  And regardless of which of the 2 big parties you vote for, you are voting for big, corrupt government.  Voting for a third option may be a statement, and if it's important to you, by all means do it.  It won't matter to anyone or anything else.

I was naive for a very long time, but now I understand. If you really want change you have to root for the underdog, the guy that never actually wins. I thought that the white chick and the black dude might be the underdogs to prevail, but they've only reinforced the the stereotypes of the parties that don't get shit done.

[Ghandi]

Well, by voting you are making a statement. Sometimes it matters less about who wins than the statement you make with your vote. And, just maybe, enough people will care to make some actual change.

Although, I laugh as I type that because the midterm elections in '06 were supposed to be about some American outcry for change, and what has changed? Nothing. So the system doesn't always work.

[Cobra951]

Although, I laugh as I type that because the midterm elections in '06 were supposed to be about some American outcry for change, and what has changed? Nothing. So the system doesn't always work.

Perfect example.  The midterm elections handed control of the entire legislative branch of the federal government from republicans to democrats.  Nothing has changed as a result.

Edit:  I heard a line in a movie recently, and now I can't remember which.  "If voting accomplished anything, they'd make it illegal."   

[angrykeebler]

I live in California. That is all.

[scottws]

Sending statements to politicians doesn't work.  I thought when Jesse "The Body" Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota, that was a huge shot across the bow to all politicians that people are not happy with the state of things and want a change.

But did anything change, at all?  No.  In fact it got worse.  I remember there was usually at least a candidate you wanted to win.  Now there are only candidates you don't want to win.

[Quemaqua]

I'm pretty much with nick at this point, and I'd second what Cobra and scott said before me.

[gpw11]

I sit on the fence.  It's a bit of a waste of time, but if you want easy involvement what else are you going to do?  The problem is that it's a two party system, and as such, both parties are solid appeasement parties. No actual platforms, no strong indications of policy, and total lack of ideology. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a waste of time; I'd say voting republican or democrat is a waste of time.

As for making a statement by voting, you also make one by not voting.  The problem is that it's hard for that statement to register.

Anyways, Ron Paul raised like 4 million dollars yesterday.  I'm not one of those guys that love him, but I do like what he's doing.  Actually having a platform and shaking things up...and the media just hates it.

[Pugnate]

I'll tell you one thing. If they made it mandatory to vote in most of the third world, it would be in worse shape than it is.

[Xessive]

Voting and democracy are nice concepts. I see two problems with democracy though: it's easy to be deceiptful because it requires everyone involved to be honest (which is ideal but unrealistic); in a perfect world where people are honest it might be more successful. The second issue is something I like to call "the tyranny of democracy" in which case a large number of people get screwed because a slightly larger number of people decided against them (i.e. 49% vs 51%). 49% of anything is a good chunk of it, virtually half, but technically not. I always felt there's needs to be a spread to ensure a clear victory of one side over another.

[Quemaqua]

Xessive, your initial problem is a problem with 100% of all governments, though.  I agree with you in the sense that yes, Democracy needs good people to work, but then so too does Socialism, Communism, Despotism, Monarchy, or even raw Anarchy.  Any of those would work well enough *if* you had decent people running the show.

The inherent issue with all of it?  People are evil.

[Pugnate]

[gpw11]

Well, that's like the old saying "It's not the best system, but it's the best we have".  People have come up with seemingly perfect systems, but they are all just pipe dreams.  A democratic republic is ideal in a lot of scenarios because it relies on goodwill and honesty a lot less then most other systems.  It's certainly just as corruptible, but generally the damage a single individual or small group can do is very limited.  Theoretically.

As for the second part, there are other voting systems, but they all have issues as well.

[Ghandi]

As for making a statement by voting, you also make one by not voting.  The problem is that it's hard for that statement to register.

If you expect to make a strong statement through your individual vote you are disillusioned. Political activism exists for a reason. The problem is, there is not enough of it these days. The system is muddied with political pandering and maneuvering - spreading disinformation. Why tell the truth when a lie is more effective?

[Xessive]

Xessive, your initial problem is a problem with 100% of all governments, though.  I agree with you in the sense that yes, Democracy needs good people to work, but then so too does Socialism, Communism, Despotism, Monarchy, or even raw Anarchy.  Any of those would work well enough *if* you had decent people running the show.

The inherent issue with all of it?  People are evil.

True, all too true.

I wonder if there's a set of systems that if used as a hybrid can give us a system that can cover most of the issues. I don't have any specific thoughts just yet, but my mind seems to sway towards some sort of triangle, like a triune between the people, a monarch (whose interest is the people), and an administrative body managing the technical stuff.

[scottws]

Well that's basically what democracy is supposed to be.

[Ghandi]

The inherent issue with all of it?  People are evil.

Are you evil?

[Quemaqua]

All people are evil.  Some just mask it better than others.

[Ghandi]

Perhaps evil is  a subjective term, and people are merely good in their own right? One man's saint is another man's sinner.

[Cobra951]

I think I understand where he's coming from.  People are fundamentally flawed.  The adage "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" illustrates it.  You can't give a group of people control over everything because the power will corrupt them and their system.  But mob rule or anarchy won't work either.  The result is that things will always be in some stage of fucking up.