Human Rights are an Obligation of Citizenship
"Every act of Government, Law, Constitution, and Executive shall require the direct and regular approval of every citizen."
"Every citizen has the right to an equal share of the Benifits and Obligations of citizenship."
Most people are trained to ignore you, and if you DID manage to get support, the other two parties would have you killed.
Running for president without the backing of one of the two centrist parties running the country is a waste of time.
Most people are trained to ignore you, and if you DID manage to get support, the other two parties would have you killed.
sad but true.
You should be allowed to give negative votes, just in case you don't want to vote for either of the Two Big, but want to not vote for one of them more.
It's also bad when there are many similar candidates. Votes that would go to the lesser evil instead instead help the greater one.
You should be allowed to give negative votes, just in case you don't want to vote for either of the Two Big, but want to not vote for one of them more.
I don't know about the negative vote, but you can always write in if you do not want to vote for either of the canidates. Or the is the whole not voting thing. As long as you don't complain about who wins if you don't vote. That is hella anoying! :headexplo
I don't know about the negative vote, but you can always write in if you do not want to vote for either of the canidates. Or the is the whole not voting thing. As long as you don't complain about who wins if you don't vote. That is hella anoying! :headexplo
Yeah. I am fully aware that none of my votes during my 4 years of voting have affected anything. One of my friends told me that he refuses to vote because he knows it doesn't help, two of the three big parties will always win (it's amazing to me that the third one somehow "loses" while smaller parties "win" alongside the two others). I told him that voting gives one the license to complain. That's why I vote.
And negative votes are for the situations when you don't like one of the candidates, but hate the other. You might not want to vote for candidate X to vote against candidate Y, so I'm suggesting taking away the middleman and just allowing people to vote against candidates.
Fracturing votes are very evident here in Finland. For example, we have about a milliard communist parties, which is propably why none of them can even get into the opposition in the Parliament.
Yeah. I am fully aware that none of my votes during my 4 years of voting have affected anything. One of my friends told me that he refuses to vote because he knows it doesn't help, two of the three big parties will always win (it's amazing to me that the third one somehow "loses" while smaller parties "win" alongside the two others). I told him that voting gives one the license to complain. That's why I vote.
And negative votes are for the situations when you don't like one of the candidates, but hate the other. You might not want to vote for candidate X to vote against candidate Y, so I'm suggesting taking away the middleman and just allowing people to vote against candidates.
Fracturing votes are very evident here in Finland. For example, we have about a milliard communist parties, which is propably why none of them can even get into the opposition in the Parliament.
I understand your friends pain, in regards to believing that your vote doesn't matter, but at the risk of sounding like an after school special; every vote counts. Weather you think it does or not. Your vote is your voice and if you don't "speak up" then don't complain.
I hear your point about fratcuring votes, and I am not familiar at all with Finland and their politcal system. However, in america if you don't like either canadate you always have the option of writing in someone who you think will be the best person for the job. I have plenty of friends who voted for Mickey Mouse for president cause they didn't like either kerry or bush. Negative votes I think will only cause anarachy and mis-use in america.
I have plenty of friends who voted for Mickey Mouse for president cause they didn't like either kerry or bush.
Donald Duck is a pretty popular candidate in Finland.
I'd propably vote empty if enough people did it with me. It propably wouldn't be noticed even then, though, so I continue to renew my complaining license in every election.
And for the record. Mickey for Prez, Donald for VP :D
So...
As an independent, you could win the popular vote and still lose because the electoral college wouldnt let you win. For example, Al Gore won the popular vote and lost to Geroge W. Bush, which is why Gore took the process to court, but again lost there.
Running for president without the backing of one of the two centrist parties running the country is a waste of time.
Most people are trained to ignore you, and if you DID manage to get support, the other two parties would have you killed.
Oh, its entirely possible to run for, and indeed WIN the presidency, without being a member of one of the two major parties. Ross Perot nearly did it in 1992; had he not dropped out and then rejoined, he had a real shot of victory.
The problem is that you have to be exceedingly wealthy to have a chance, AND you need to have a platform with broad support, or at least a lot of planks which please a large portion of the country.
Its not impossible. But most people who are that wealthy don't want to.
I told him that voting gives one the license to complain. That's why I vote.
Heh, it's actually irrelevant to complaining. Heck, if anything you have more right to complain if you don't vote because then you're at least making a small attempt to withdraw consent. I'll reconsider my position should they ever put "no confidence" on the ticket.
Yeah. I am fully aware that none of my votes during my 4 years of voting have affected anything.
You are correct. If an individual chooses to exercise their political power by merely casting their vote, than they really are not changing anything. Only in the most fringe of cases will any individual vote count.
Political power is exercised by mobilization. If there is an issue you care deeply about, you must organize to affect anything about it. Raise money. Start a PAC. Hire professional lobbyists. Attain media coverage. Start your own political career at the local level to build from there.
It is no accident that K Street exists in Washington - because that is how political power is exercised in the United States. It is not exercised by an individual meekly voting for whomever they think is the best candidate.
Human Rights are an Obligation of Citizenship
This is far too vague to understand what you mean. Perhaps you wish to strip citizenship and deport everyone who does not volunteer at soup kitchens?
"Every act of Government, Law, Constitution, and Executive shall require the direct and regular approval of every citizen."
This would grind all governmental action to a complete an utter standstill and anarchy would prevail. Unless you happen to be a warlord with your own militia, anarchy is a bad thing.
"Every citizen has the right to an equal share of the Benifits and Obligations of citizenship."
If you are a United States citizen, you have this. Read the Bill of Rights. Also see Due Process under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Donald Duck is a pretty popular candidate in Finland.
In Poland Donald is the Prime Minister, while Duck is the President. It's true.
In Poland Donald is the Prime Minister, while Duck is the President. It's true.
I can confirm the first one but not the second one, since I don't know any Polish. I'll have to take your word for it. That's pretty awesome.
I can confirm the first one but not the second one, since I don't know any Polish. I'll have to take your word for it. That's pretty awesome.
'Duck' is 'Kaczka' in Polish and the guy is named Kaczynski. He's often nicknamed to 'Kaczor', which means 'Male Duck'.
Donald Duck is named Kaczor Donald in Poland, so that creates a funny coincidence :D
It was even funnier before last elections, because the Prime Minister was the Presidents twin brother and foreign people had problems with telling who does what :D
However, in america if you don't like either canadate you always have the option of writing in someone who you think will be the best person for the job.
In that I envy you (the voting system in the US of A is otherwise pretty hilarious). If I write the name of a noncandidate or in fact write anything other than the candidate's number on the ballot, the vote will be trashed during the counting.
That said, one time for a local election my family (four people) wrote in my mother for a position which was write-in only and, hilarously, she won (but turned down the position because she didn't want it). So sometimes it does work.
This is far too vague to understand what you mean. Perhaps you wish to strip citizenship and deport everyone who does not volunteer at soup kitchens?
"Every act of Government, Law, Constitution, and Executive shall require the direct and regular approval of every citizen."
This would grind all governmental action to a complete an utter standstill and anarchy would prevail. Unless you happen to be a warlord with your own militia, anarchy is a bad thing.
"Every citizen has the right to an equal share of the Benifits and Obligations of citizenship."
If you are a United States citizen, you have this. Read the Bill of Rights. Also see Due Process under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Welcome to the Commonwealth/Hegemony War.
Feel free to shoot anyone in the no-mans-land because Neutral is Anarchy.
Hegemonist: Peddler of Seditious Government
As long as you don't complain about who wins if you don't vote. That is hella anoying! :headexplo
"I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." ~ George Carlin
RIP Carlin"I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." ~ George Carlin
Except that is wrong.
By abdicating all responsibility and all participation, he is in fact totally responsible for letting those other people elect said politicians. Had he gotten together with all of the other people abdicating their rights as citizens and voted for someone else who may easily have won.
No, however humorous that might appear, the key statement there is that of someone whining that because he is not guaranteed of getting his way he will not even try and then place the blame for not getting what he wants on everyone else.
Doing nothing is in fact a choice. Such a person is voting to let someone else decide. If that person is unhappy with the results he has only himself to blame for saying "I am too afraid of being wrong, you decide for me."
"I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." ~ George Carlin
Worthless.
You are always free to write in someone else's name.
If you didn't vote in 2000 and could, then you voted for the winner (Bush), because you weren't there to change the outcome.
If you don't vote, then you are culpable for your actions. You did nothing to avoid the election of the corrupt; indeed, you allowed it.
Inaction is an action in and of itself, and the consequences of inaction, such as when people didn't, say, stop 9/11... well, claiming they aren't culpable for their actions is wrong to say the least.
If you don't do anything, its your fault. Some of us do try to make the world better.
You may say "Well, this guy's evil, but the other guy isn't exactly good", but if you don't vote, and the evil guy wins, its your fault we got the worse guy.
And heck, if everyone who CLAIMED that all politicians were corrupt went and wrote in someone else, you could get them elected easily. The fact that these people don't do so leads me to believe they're either too scared to make a choice or too lazy to bother, and simply try to pass off the responsibility onto others.
By abdicating all responsibility and all participation, he is in fact totally responsible for letting those other people elect said politicians. Had he gotten together with all of the other people abdicating their rights as citizens and voted for someone else who may easily have won.
Due to his media influence, this might apply to Carlin, but it certainly doesn't apply to John Q. Public. He controls only one statistically insignificant vote, especially if we're talking POTUS elections (e.g.: Obama will win my state regardless of how I vote.) One could argue that if the existing voters simply "got it right" then it wouldn't matter if turnouts were higher. One could argue that if everyone simply stopped voting then we might see some real change. But these are all "what ifs" and not valid arguments.
Worthless.
You do know what a joke is, right?
You are always free to write in someone else's name.
I am? Damn, who knew that the U.S. let non-Americans vote for the U.S. president. Awesome!
If you didn't vote in 2000 and could, then you voted for the winner (Bush), because you weren't there to change the outcome.
Well, since Bush did not win and the results of the 2000 election were decided by crooked Republican politicians and cronies it hardly mattered what any voter did.
I am? Damn, who knew that the U.S. let non-Americans vote for the U.S. president. Awesome!
I don't know if that was a joke or not, but I heard some Russian hackers managed to do that.
"I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." ~ George Carlin
Ah. The good old Comedian that is smarter and funnier then everyone. Lets take a professional joke teller's advice everyone! Assuming they are serious in their comments of course.
And oh please. "Mom, why did you make pasta for dinner? I didn't eventell anyone what I wanted!!! I am going to go complain!!!!"
Due to his media influence, this might apply to Carlin, but it certainly doesn't apply to John Q. Public. He controls only one statistically insignificant vote, especially if we're talking POTUS elections (e.g.: Obama will win my state regardless of how I vote.) One could argue that if the existing voters simply "got it right" then it wouldn't matter if turnouts were higher. One could argue that if everyone simply stopped voting then we might see some real change. But these are all "what ifs" and not valid arguments.
So because no one can prove your vote is the deciding one, that justifies abdicating participation?
One could argue that circular reasoning justifies abdicating responsibility then complaining that nobody does what you want, but that does not change the fact that when less than half the electorate fails to participate, they could in fact completely dominate the election if they chose to exercise their rights.
If you do not vote you do not matter because you have chosen not to matter, not because other people have a different preference.
So because no one can prove your vote is the deciding one, that justifies abdicating participation?
No, because your vote is the marginal one as far as you are concerned--it's the only one you can control. The marginal utility of your vote vis-a-vis the outcome is nil. You're voting for your own psychological well-being, not that there's anything wrong with that (at least not under social contract theory.) In fact, the greater the turnout, the less impact your vote has.
that does not change the fact that when less than half the electorate fails to participate, they could in fact completely dominate the election if they chose to exercise their rights.
Why would you expect their votes to be divided-up any differently than the existing votes? A 50% sample size is pretty darn accurate, so the assertion that the outcome would be much different is unlikely to be true in most elections, which are usually landslides anyways thanks to gerrymandering. In either case, the only difference it makes is (usually) between one of two candidates--hardly revolutionary.
If you do not vote you do not matter because you have chosen not to matter, not because other people have a different preference.
Well I'm fine with that opinion, even though it's patent ad populum nonsense. I'd rather not be counted as one of the cannibals at the pot.
No, because your vote is the marginal one as far as you are concerned--it's the only one you can control. The marginal utility of your vote vis-a-vis the outcome is nil. You're voting for your own psychological well-being, not that there's anything wrong with that (at least not under social contract theory.) In fact, the greater the turnout, the less impact your vote has.
That ignores that the sum total of votes has an outcome.
That means the utility of each individual vote is anything but nil, even if your chosen candidate is not elected. Simply by participating enough to cause a multiparty system you have an effect on the system as a whole.
Why would you expect their votes to be divided-up any differently than the existing votes? A 50% sample size is pretty darn accurate, so the assertion that the outcome would be much different is unlikely to be true in most elections, which are usually landslides anyways thanks to gerrymandering. In either case, the only difference it makes is (usually) between one of two candidates--hardly revolutionary.
Because they are taking your advice and believing their votes are irrelevant. That is doubly so if they support what would be third party candidates.
Virtually all revolutions are staged by minority factions. The votes, cast or uncast, by any minority faction are quite capable of being disproportionately relevant.
Well I'm fine with that opinion, even though it's patent ad populum nonsense. I'd rather not be counted as one of the cannibals at the pot.
The ad populum nonsense is yours, as you are advocating abdicating political power because everyone else is doing it.
You also have a rather flawed ad hominem analogy there.
That ignores that the sum total of votes has an outcome.
Yes, because it's irrelevant to the value of your single vote. It's simple economics. Would you like me to give you a list of recent nearby elections so you can see that the margin of victory was greater than 1? Since you seem impervious to a priori reasoning, would empirical data prove it sufficiently for you?
Because they are taking your advice and believing their votes are irrelevant. That is doubly so if they support what would be third party candidates.
No one is taking my advice--they're acting on their own preferences. Again, I don't control anyone else's vote.
The ad populum nonsense is yours, as you are advocating abdicating political power because everyone else is doing it.
No, voter turn-out shows that everyone is not doing it.
Yes, because it's irrelevant to the value of your single vote. It's simple economics. Would you like me to give you a list of recent nearby elections so you can see that the margin of victory was greater than 1? Since you seem impervious to a priori reasoning, would empirical data prove it sufficiently for you?
You have no a priori reasoning, just post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. That you confuse it for economic activity shows you are using a completely incorrect model for it as well.
Just because margins of victory are not always 1 does not mean that the individual votes are irrelevant above and beyond that margin.
No one is taking my advice--they're acting on their own preferences. Again, I don't control anyone else's vote.
That presumes everyone makes political decisions in an absolute vacuum. They do not.
Once again you have a failure to properly associate causes and effects.
No, voter turn-out shows that everyone is not doing it.
It shows that a "majority" is doing it, thus establishing your appeal to the masses to show that votes are irrelevant.
Indeed, your entire premise is based an on appeal to the masses, assuming that only one particular vote is ever relevant.
It might make for a nice abstract though experiment, a science fiction musing, or a current movie starring Kevin Costner, but it does not make for a scientific analysis, or a preferable political system.
At least I prefer to be one of the ruling electorate no matter how many others are satisfied with self-disenfranchisement.
That you confuse it for economic activity shows you are using a completely incorrect model for it as well.
No, the proper study of economics is nothing less than the study of human action. Now you're just hand-waving instead of addressing my points.
Just because margins of victory are not always 1 does not mean that the individual votes are irrelevant above and beyond that margin.
Prove that one vote will change even a significant number of elections, and I'll give you this. Most people already understand the point I'm making. They know their single vote won't change an election--they're doing it for all the psychological reasons you are. Again, nothing wrong with that.
At least I prefer to be one of the ruling electorate no matter how many others are satisfied with self-disenfranchisement.
Great. And when you're done patting yourself on the back about what a good boy you are, perhaps you can re-think this strategy about demanding that other people express their preferences while telling them their preferences are wrong. Have a wonderful life.
Prove that one vote will change even a significant number of elections, and I'll give you this. Most people already understand the point I'm making. They know their single vote won't change an election--they're doing it for all the psychological reasons you are. Again, nothing wrong with that.
I agree, one individual vote usually won't change an election. But what about a million individual votes?
I agree, one individual vote usually won't change an election. But what about a million individual votes?
Sure. But unless you're George Soros those votes are yours to command. Even George has only one vote--his actual vote is nothing compared to his ability to influence politics through money and favors.
Anyways, did you have another point to make? I sense these mathematical truisms have run their course.
Sure. But unless you're George Soros those votes are yours to command.
Of course I mean "aren't." (/sigh stupid browser won't let me edit...)
Sure. But unless you're George Soros those votes are yours to command. Even George has only one vote--his actual vote is nothing compared to his ability to influence politics through money and favors.
Not what I'm talking about. I have no illusions about all the people who currently don't vote wanting to vote for the same guy. All I'm saying is that if all the people who think "Why bother, my vote doesn't matter" voted, who knows? The result might be very different. As long as the "Meh" attitude persists, we will never know.
All I'm saying is that if all the people who think "Why bother, my vote doesn't matter" voted, who knows? The result might be very different. As long as the "Meh" attitude persists, we will never know.
Well, we cannot put the cart before the horse. If there's to be a revolution or whatever at the ballot boxes, there must first be a philosophical change in the culture. One could argue that Ron Paul or Ralph Nader's inability to win is a feature, not a bug. Would you want a minority philosophy hijacking the POTUS?
For example, the reason the Libertarian party keeps loosing is because very few people are libertarian in their belief system. Loosing elections decade after decade changes nothing because libertarians aren't at work changing the culture of the population at-large. People at-large value handouts more than economic freedom; they value predictable safety over social freedom. So long as that continues, they will vote accordingly.
So until and unless there's genuine philosophical change, no one-off victory or cult of personality is going to change much.
Would you want a minority philosophy hijacking the POTUS?
If it's one I subscribe to, yes. And how can it "hijack" the POTUS, if it wins the majority vote.
Maybe this is just hard for me to wrap my head around, since I'm not a partisan. I vote for people, not parties.
No, the proper study of economics is nothing less than the study of human action. Now you're just hand-waving instead of addressing my points.
Oh, well then . . .
The study of military theory is nothing less than the study of human interaction. By that, individual actions are highly relevant. Therefore the individual vote is always critical.
What you have there is a non-point. You are misapplying the lessons of a divergent field without properly accounting for the differences in execution.
Prove that one vote will change even a significant number of elections, and I'll give you this. Most people already understand the point I'm making. They know their single vote won't change an election--they're doing it for all the psychological reasons you are. Again, nothing wrong with that.
You mean like the one vote cast by a woman in the US that led eventually to women's suffrage?
OK, done.
Or do you mean the one vote cast as an abstention instead of a negative that led to the passage of the declaration of indendependence?
Done again.
What about the one vote cast not to impeach Andrew Johnson?
Done a third time.
While most people know their single vote will not change an election, they are also aware that in combination with other single votes it does.
Great. And when you're done patting yourself on the back about what a good boy you are, perhaps you can re-think this strategy about demanding that other people express their preferences while telling them their preferences are wrong. Have a wonderful life.
Sorry, you already have that covered. I am left with just advocating for participating in democracy.
If it's one I subscribe to, yes.
Then it depends on your point of view: is a vote a metric of popular opinion, or is it an instrument to force one's will on the people? Is it both? Different people will give different answers.
And how can it "hijack" the POTUS, if it wins the majority vote.
The process is designed not to, that's why it doesn't allow it.
"I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." ~ George Carlin
It's rare, but there are times when Carlin actually said funny things without offending decent human-beings.
It's rare, but there are times when Carlin actually said funny things without offending decent human-beings.
Actually it was quite common early in his career when he actually told jokes. Later he tried to do social commentary and became just another shrieking partisan talking head. Unfortunately for him, Crossfire already had a full cast.
Very few people are capable of doing social commentary in a humorous fashion. Carlin was not one of them.
I got two write-in votes in the election here in Iowa, but this topic is still banned.
I'm bored so why not.